Proceedings of
UNESCO Chair Programmeon Cultural Heritage andRisk Management,

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING
COURSE (ITC) on DISASTERRISK MANAGEMENT of
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Ritsumeikan University
2015, 10th year
From 12th to 28th September 2015,
In Kyoto, Kobe and Minami SanrikuCho, Japan
Organized by Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural
Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), Kyoto, JapanIn Cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS / ICORP
Supported by Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”

Date of Publication: February 2016
Published by: Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University
58 Komatsubara Kita-machi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8341 Japan
In cooperation with: UNESCO
ICCROM
ICOMOS / ICORP
Supported by: Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”
Authors: Participants of ITC2015 and Former participants of ITC
Coordinated by: Rohit JIGYASU, UNESCO Chair Holder, Professor
Naoko USHITANI ITAYA, Associate Professor
Dowon KIM, Senior Researcher
Layout by: ADTHREE Publishing Co., Ltd.
4-27-37 Higashi Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Japan
Printed by: HOKUTO Printing Co., Ltd.
38-2 Shimogamo Takagi-Cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan© All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced, restored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form without the written permission from the Publisher.

Preface
Recently devastating earthquakes in Nepal in April and May 2015 have caused significant loss to richliving heritage of Nepal. North Italy earthquake of 2012 caused widespread damage to the historiccity of Ferrara while earthquake in Philippines in 2013 damaged historic Bohol churches. Floods inBalkan region in 2014 affected numerous historic towns, 2011 floods in Thailand severely damaged
the World Heritage Site of Ayuthhaya and 2010 floods in Pakistan affected many archaeologicalsites and vernacular settlements along River Indus. As exemplified through these incidents, cultural
heritage is confronted with various kinds of disaster risks, due to natural hazards such as floods,
fires, earthquakes etc. as well as human induced events such as terrorism, vandalism, armed
conflict and arson. As a result, many cultural heritage sites including those on the World Heritage
List have been significantly damaged in the recent years.
World is facing increased rate of urbanization than ever before. Number of people living in cities
equaled those in villages in 2007 and is rising ever since. Such a fast pace of urbanizationaccompanied by densification, poorly constructed buildings and overburdened infrastructure isputting tremendous pressure on heritage sites especially those located in urban areas, thereby
increasing their vulnerability to earthquakes and floods.
Moreover, Climate Change is contributing towards increased intensity and frequency of hydrometeorological events such as heavy rainfall and cyclones. As a result, many heritage sites located in
global hot spots such as coastal areas especially below sea level are exposed to risks of inundation
greater than ever before. Also there might be low frequency high intensity incidents of flooding that
may trigger landslides along mountain slopes.
While vulnerability of cultural heritage is increasing more than ever before, there are countlessexamples of traditional knowledge evolved by communities through series of trials and errors that
demonstrate that cultural heritage can be an effective source of resilience. Through this accumulated
wisdom these communities have developed effective indigenous mechanisms of dealing withearthquakes and floods rather than trying to only resist them through technocratic measures.
However, despite the increasing vulnerability of cultural heritage to hazards, disaster risk reduction
unfortunately does not register as a priority area for management. This is supported by the fact that
only handful of World Heritage Properties have formulated disaster risk management plans andeven fewer and implemented them. Among other factors, this is result of low levels of awarenessamong various stakeholders and the public and the limited capacity building of those in charge ofprotection and management.
Therefore it is important to conduct site-based risk assessments and, where appropriate, develop
the necessary disaster risk management plans outlining mitigation, emergency preparedness,
response and recovery measures for various hazards to which the properties are exposed. On theother hand, measures must be taken to advance heritage concerns in the wider agenda for disasterrisk reduction and to raise awareness among heritage managers and professionals.
This necessitates building the capacity of heritage managers, civic defence/emergency response
agencies as well as decision makers from heritage as well as disaster management fields on reducing
disaster risks to cultural heritage. In this direction, a pioneering initiative has been undertaken by the
UNESCO Chair established within the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto (Japan), which in cooperation with ICCROM, ICOMOS-ICORP and the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre has been organizing international training course on disaster risk
management of cultural heritage every year since 2006. The target groups for this course include

government institutions, departments, universities, NGOs and private consultants from cultural
heritage, as well as relevant disaster management fields. Many of the former participants of thecourse have been undertaking several initiatives in their home countries and regions based on theirlearning from the course. Therefore in these proceedings, we have included reports from some ofour participants highlighting their work after attending our course.
The proceedings also contains brief reports on disaster risk management plans for case study sites
from the home countries of the participants based on the outlines prepared by them during thecourse.
The importance of this training course has been globally recognized as seen with increasing number
of applicants from all over the world and our institute hopes to continue this initiative in the future.

Rohit JIGYASUUNESCO Chair Holder, Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto

Preface
The “Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)”
was established as a permanent research institution in 2013 and has handed over activities fromformer organization as “Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage” which
was started by Prof. Kenzo Toki from 2003.
The “UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage”
started from 2006 as one of our important educational activities, and fortunately we can continue
it up to 10th time supported by UNESCO, ICCROM, Toyota Foundation and many national andinternational organizations. I would like to thank these colleagues for supporting us and participantsfrom all over the world. The purposes of this training course are education of practical experts ineach field of cultural heritage conservation and disaster risk management, and development ofdraft plan for disaster risk management to secure the safety of people and cultural value in each
cultural heritage site and historical city. I hope these plans to be actual projects in each country andcontribute to cultural advancement in the world.
Thank you all again for supporting this activity, and please keep in touch with us for inheriting cultural
heritages for next generation.

Takeyuki OKUBO
Director, R-DMUCH
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ritsumeikan University

Preface
The International Training Course, Ritsumeikan University is the first attempt at the international levelto provide high level education opportunities for people in the cultural heritage field and for people
in the natural disaster field. In the 10 years that the course has been implemented, we had 856
applicants and 99 people from 41 countries have been trained. The accepted number of trainee
is only 11.6% and it is small percentage. Particularly in 2012, we could receive only 9 people as
trainee among 175 applicants and this is only 5%. We, therefore, have been proposed to increase
the number of trainee from past applicants and people of relevant fields, both of domestic andinternational communities. The course, however, is financially supported by COE of the Ministryof Education program and the budget of the training course is not large enough to accept all theapplicants because the course is one of the projects of COE program.
Recognizing our activities and achievements by ITC, the Toyota Foundation has decided to support
the course for three years from the fiscal year 2014. Then the total budget has been almost doubled
and the number of trainee has increased. Moreover we could increase speakers not only fromdomestic but also abroad. In 2015, the second year with the support from the foundation, we could
invite 15 trainees and it is the largest number than ever. On the other hand, we have been proposed
to establish a follow-up program from the graduates of our course and people of relevant fields,
which is to establish a similar course to our training course in their own counties and communities.
We will carry out a follow-up training course in Kathmandu, Nepal in 2016 where people need quick
recovery from the Gorkha earthquake which occurred in April, 2015.
In this way, the support by the Toyota Foundation allowed us to provide better course for more
people, so that our course has been receiving high evaluation from the international community. A
noteworthy fact is that trainees gave us very good assessment for our course. Hereby we appreciate
the recognition and evaluation of activities of our training course by the Toyota Foundation and wewould like to express our heart-full gratitude to the foundation. We promise to continue this training
course as one of our most important missions.

Kenzo TOKI
Representative, Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”,
Enhancement of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Cultural Heritage and Risk
Management and Post-training Follow-up.
Professor, Ritsumeikan University

Table of Contents
Preface3

1

9Introduction
1.1 Background and Objectives of
the 10th International Training Course 201510

1.2TimetableofUNESCOChairProgrammeonCulturalHeritageandRiskManagement,InternationalTrainingCourse(ITC)onDisasterRisk

2

Management of Cultural Heritage 2015, 10th year, Ritsumeikan University

26

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC2015 Participants

29<Historic Cities>
2.1 Historic Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaíso, Chile30

2.2 Thapathali - TekuDobhanGhat Area, Kathmandu, Nepal

35

2.3 Cultural Heritage in Middelstum, Groningen, the Netherlands

40

2.4 Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ribt Ala Edeen,
A Case Study from the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestine44

2.5 Water-based Cultural Landscape Values and Disaster Risk
Management of Ban Pak Klong in Bangrakam Sub-district,Phitsanulok Province, Thailand

48<Heritage Sites>
2.6 Disaster Risk Management for Bam and its Cultural Landscape in Iran52

2.7 Integrated Disaster Management Plan: The Archeological Area ofAgrigent, Valley of the Temples, Italy

56

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Robben Island World Heritage Site,
South Africa

60<Historic Buildings>
2.9 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ashanti Traditional Building Ejisu Besease Shrine

652.10 Preparing Disaster Risk Management Plan for Boudhanath Stupa, Nepal 71

2.11 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines:
The Case of Sto. Niño Shrine & Heritage Museum, and People’s
Center & Library374

2.12 Disaster Risk Analyses and Prevention in ŽIČA Monastery, Serbia

78

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants83

3.1 Preparing for and Responding to the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake,in Nepal, 2008

84

3.2 Global Contribution of the International Training Program towards
Management of Cultural Heritage During Disasters without Borders,in Turkey, 2008

88

3.3 A Result of Arson on Wooden Heritage and Disaster Mitigation Planningin Korea, 2012

92

3.4 Risk Management Planning for the Archaeological Sites in İzmir, Turkey

96

3.5 Flood 2014, Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno, in Itary, 2013100

3.6 From Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic City of
Ayutthaya toward Capacity Building in Disaster Risk Management
for Southeast Asian Heritage, in Thailand, 2013

103

3.7 Advocating DRM Planning for Cultural Heritage in Australia; and Case
Study: Bushfire Mitigation for Natural and Cultural Heritage in Northern
Sydney, in Australia, 2014

106

3.8 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic Cairo (WHS),
in Egypt, 2014
Appendix

110
115

List of Resource Persons

116

List of Participants

118

Photos of ITC 2015

119

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training
Course 2015

Disasters and Cultural Heritage
Recent disasters such as Nepal earthquakes in April and May 2015, earthquake and cyclones in
Philippines in 2014, fires in Lijiang, China in 2013 and 2014, the devastating tsunami in North Eastof Japan in 2011 and as well as earthquakes that hit Christchurch, New Zealand in 2010 and 2011,
Haiti and Chile in 2010 have caused enormous loss of life, property and cultural heritage. Thisdisaster has once again shown that cultural heritage is highly vulnerable to natural disasters suchas earthquake, the Tsunami, fire, floods and cyclones.
Therefore it is important to undertake proactive measures that can reduce risks to cultural heritage
from these catastrophic events through adequate mitigation and preparedness. In the post disaster
phase, the challenge is how to salvage heritage properties, which are at risk of demolition and toassess their damage. The long term challenge during recovery phase is how to repair and retrofit
them and undertake reconstruction that respects tangible as well as intangible heritage values.
In the light of these challenges, comprehensive risk management is essential for the protectionof cultural heritage from disasters. Therefore Cultural Heritage and Risk Management project ofInstitute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
aims to organize the International Training Programme to build the institutional capacity needed toformulate comprehensive risk management plans that are based on the characteristics of cultural
heritage and nature of hazards in the regional context.
One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to earthquakes andfloods, which may also cause secondary hazards such as landslides and fires thereby exacerbating
the damage. Considering these issues, the 10th International Training Course on Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage will specifically focus on ‘Protecting cultural heritage fromdisaster risks due to earthquakes and floods’.

101.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

Regional Distribution of World Heritage sites located on the Earthquake Zones

RegionCultural/Mix

0-100
km

100-200
km

100

Australia/New ZealandWithin
200km

Over
200km

Total

91

191

27%

513

73%

704

1

1

14%

6

86%

7

45%

6

55%

11

Caribbean

2

3

5

Central America

10

10

20

59%

14

41%

34

Central Asia

2

2

22%

7

78%

9

Eastern Africa

2

1

3

14%

18

86%

21

Eastern Asia

10

11

21

42%

29

58%

50

Eastern Europe

1

1

2%

56

98%

57

0

0%

14

100%

14

1

2

100%

0%

2

1

1

100%

0%

1

European Russia
Melanesia

1

Middle Africa
Northern Africa

3

7

21%

27

79%

34

Northern America

1

4

1

7%

13

93%

14

Northern Europe

1

1

2%

49

98%

50

8

16

24

57%

18

43%

42

6

1

7

39%

11

61%

18

0

0%

7

100%

7

Southern Asia

6

8

14

29%

34

71%

48

Southern Europe

35

23

58

45%

70

55%

128

0

0%

16

100%

16

8

21

40%

31

60%

52

2

2

2%

87

98%

89

Southern Africa

Western Africa
Western Asia

13

Western Europe
Natural

36

18

54

31%

120

69%

174

Total

136

109

245

28%

633

72%

878

Introduction

South America
Southeastern Asia

Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University and Its Training Course
The International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage is a follow-up
of the recommendations adopted at the Special Thematic Session on Risk Management for Cultural
Heritage held at UN-WCDR (World Conference on Disaster Reduction) in January 2005 in Kobe,
Hyogo, Japan. One of these recommendations advocated the need for the academic community
to develop scientific research, education and training programs incorporating cultural heritage inboth its tangible and intangible manifestations, into risk management and disaster recovery. The
importance of strengthening knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of disasterprevention at WH properties was reiterated also by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session(Vilnius, Lithuania, July 2006).
Furthermore, the “Declaration”, adopted at the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC)
of Davos (August 2006) confirmed that “concern for heritage, both tangible and intangible, should
be incorporated into disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, which are strengthened throughattention to cultural attributes and traditional knowledge.” The Sendai Framework on Disaster
Risk Reduction recently adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai,
Japan has further highlighted the importance of protecting cultural heritage from disasters. Cultural
heritage has also been included one of the sectors in the new ten essentials that have been adopted
by UNISDR’s resilient city campaign.
11

In response to these recommendations by the international community, the Institute of Disaster
Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) has been acting asa focal point for organizing international research, training and information network in the field of
cultural heritage risk management and disaster mitigation. Besides R-DMUCH has also functioned
as the international secretariat for ICOMOS-International Scientific Committee on Risk Preparedness(ICORP) from 2011 to 2014 and many of its faculty are expert members of the Scientific Committee.
The past training courses have been attended by participants from China and Korea from East Asia;
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand from South-East Asia; Bangladesh, Bhutan,
India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka from South Asia; Australia, Fiji, New Zealand andPalau from the Pacific region; Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico and Peru from Latin
America and the Caribbean; Albania, Croatia, Italy, Moldova and Serbia from Europe; Afghanistan,Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey from Middle East; Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda fromAfrica.
Objectives and Methodology of the Training Course
The main objective of the course is to provide an overview of the various aspects of disaster risk
management of cultural heritage. In particular, the course provides interdisciplinary training to:✓ Undertake an integrated risk assessment by analyzing the vulnerability of cultural heritage todisasters caused by natural and human induced hazards;✓ Build an integrated system for disaster risk management of cultural heritage, incorporating
prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures;✓ Formulate disaster risk management plans for cultural heritage that correspond to the urban andregional disaster management plans and policies; and✓ Establish an international scientific support network for risk management of cultural heritage inorder to build the institutional capacity needed to formulate comprehensive risk management
plans that are based on the characteristics of cultural heritage and nature of hazards in theregional context.
The course comprises lectures, site visits, workshops, discussions, team projects and individual/group presentations. Participants are expected to actively participate throughout the course. The
course aims at promoting the development of collaborations and network building among scholars

121.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

and professionals in cultural heritage protection. This course is provided scientific support by
UNESCO and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM).
Based on the information obtained from lectures and site visits, and exercises through workshops,
the training course also sets the goal of raising planning skills in cultural heritage disaster prevention,by having each participant make a plan during a team project for the prevention of disaster to his/her country’s cultural heritage, in line with each country’s respective social and economic situation.
In order to do so, the Institute has asked the participants to prepare the relevant materials before
coming to Japan, so that the two participants from each country could learn from each other’s
experience through this process.
Special Theme of 2015 International Training Programme:
Protecting cultural heritage from disaster risks due to earthquakes and floods
Earthquakes and floods cause immense damage to cultural heritage. Recently devastating
earthquakes in Nepal in April and May 2015 have caused significant loss to rich living heritage of
Nepal. North Italy earthquake of 2012 caused widespread damage to the historic city of Ferrara
while earthquake in Philippines in 2013 damaged historic Bohol churches. Floods in Balkan regionin 2014 affected numerous historic towns, 2011 floods in Thailand severely damaged the World
Heritage Site of Ayuthhaya and 2010 floods in Pakistan affected many archaeological sites andvernacular settlements along River Indus.

Introduction

World is facing increased rate of urbanization than ever before. Number of people living in cities
equaled those in villages in 2007 and is rising ever since. Such a fast pace of urbanizationaccompanied by densification, poorly constructed buildings and overburdened infrastructure isputting tremendous pressure on heritage sites especially those located in urban areas, thereby
increasing their vulnerability to earthquakes and floods.
Moreover, Climate Change is contributing towards increased intensity and frequency of hydrometeorological events such as heavy rainfall and cyclones. As a result, many heritage sites located in
global hot spots such as coastal areas especially below sea level are exposed to risks of inundation
greater than ever before. Also there might be low frequency high intensity incidents of flooding that
may trigger landslides along mountain slopes.
While vulnerability of cultural heritage to earthquakes and floods is increasing more than ever before,
there are countless examples of traditional knowledge evolved by communities through series of trials
and errors that demonstrate that cultural heritage can be an effective source of resilience. Throughthis accumulated wisdom these communities have developed effective indigenous mechanismsof dealing with earthquakes and floods rather than trying to only resist them through technocratic
measures.
Considering these issues and challenges, the 10th International Training Course will give special
focus on the protection of cultural heritage from floods and associated hazards.

13

Historic Bohol churches in Philippines damaged by earthquake on 15
October 2013

Monasteries damaged due to earthquake in Myanmar on 11 November
2012

World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya in Thailand got inundated for weeks
due to 2011 Floods

Unprecedented heavy rainfall in Balkans in 2014 flooded many historic
towns and villages

Previous International Training Courses (2006-2014)
ITC 2006
In 2006, which was the first year for this course, eight participants from four countries were invited;
namely India and Pakistan, which were struck by a great earthquake in 2005 in Kashmir; Indonesia,
which suffered the Indian Ocean Tsunami triggered by the Sumatra Earthquake in 2004 and theEarthquake on the Javanese Island in 2004; and Korea, which had suffered a big forest fire.
ITC 2007
In 2007, R-DMUCH exchanged MOU with ICCROM and established a criterion for choosing
participants with the support of ICCROM. As a result, eight trainees from Bangladesh, China, Peru
and Philippines were invited for the training course.
Based on the experience of 2006 training course, it was decided to make closer relation between
the lectures, site visits and workshops. Therefore in 2007, several related sets of lectures were heldin the mornings and workshops in the afternoons. Based on these, discussions were facilitated by
the instructors so that the trainees were able to reflect more effectively on the challenges for cultural
heritage disaster management within their own context.
ITC 2008
The 2008 training course actively built upon the rich experience gathered during the courses heldin the previous two years. This year had participants from five countries from Asia and Europe,
namely Nepal, Bhutan, Iran, Serbia and Chinese Taipei. Effort was made to make this year’s course,
more field-based by drawing upon the unique opportunity offered by the location of important World
Heritage Sites in Kyoto such as Kiyomizu-dera and Ninna-ji temples. Most of the workshops were,
therefore, based on field work undertaken by the participants in these sites. This year’s course also
put greater emphasis on exposing the participants to the methodology for undertaking disaster risk
assessment for cultural heritage sites.
14

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

ITC 2009
The 2009 training course further evolved on the basis of rich feedback provided by the participantsof the training courses from previous years. In response to the need for making the course more
relevant to specific requirements and constraints of the developing countries, it was decided toorganize the course partly in Japan and partly in Nepal.
Moreover, for the first time, the training course had a specific theme, namely “Earthquake risk
management of Historic Urban Areas.” For this purpose, Kyoto and Kathmandu; two historic cities
with rich cultural heritage but extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, were chosen as the case study
sites for undertaking field exercises during the training course.
The first week of the course was organized in Japan and it focused on familiarizing the participants
with the basic methodology for risk assessment and management for cultural heritage properties.
The participants were shown various disaster prevention facilities developed for numerous cultural
heritage sites in Kyoto. Second week in Kathmandu focused on the earthquake vulnerability andcapacity of the World Heritage Monument Zone of Patan and its surrounding historic urban area,
both at building and area levels.
The UNESCO Chair programme intends to build upon the four years of very rich experience gained
through very active participation of lecturers from Japan and abroad, as well as the international
participants from various countries from Asia, Europe and the Caribbean and further enrich thecontents of the training course in subsequent years.

Introduction

ITC 2010
Fifth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage2010 was held from 13 to 26 September 2010 in Kyoto, Kobe and Sasayama, Japan. In the lightof destructive Haiti earthquake on January 2010, this fifth International Training Course especially
focused on emergency response and long term recovery of wooden and masonry composite
Cultural Heritage from disasters. It was attended by 11 participants from 5 countries; Bhutan, Palau,
Peru, Serbia and Turkey.
On the final day of the course, the international symposium titled “How to protect Cultural Heritage from
Disaster; Risk Preparedness and Post Disaster Recovery” was organized by Ritsumeikan University
and the ICOMOS International Committee on Risk Preparedness (ICORP). In the symposium, thecurrent challenges for protection of cultural heritages taking into account the context of post disasterrecovery was discussed in great depth with international experts from UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICORP
and a representative of Kyo-o-Gokokuji Temple; World Cultural Heritage site in Kyoto.
ITC 2011
Sixth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage
was held from 10 to 24 September 2011 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan. In thelight of increasing vulnerability of rapidly urbanizing settlements, the course focused on “Integrated
Approach for Disaster Risk Mitigation of Historic Cities”. The course was attended by 11 participantsfrom 8 countries; Columbia, Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda, China, Mexico, India and Bangladesh.
ITC 2012
Seventh International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage held during
September 2012 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan focused on sustainable recoveryof cultural heritage. Accordingly the theme of the course was “From Recovery to Risk Reduction for
Sustainability of Historic Areas”.

15

ITC 2013
The theme of the 8th UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage was “Reducing Disaster Risks to Historic Urban Areas and Their Territorial Settings
through Mitigation”. The course focused on policies and planning measures for mitigating risks tocultural heritage from multiple hazards such as earthquakes, floods, landslides and fires, especiallyin rapidly urbanizing context of developing countries. Special techniques for mitigating risks fromearthquakes and fires were also highlighted besides policies, planning and design interventions
for long term restoration and rehabilitation of cultural heritage following disaster through a special
workshop in the area affected by the Great East Japan Disaster in 2011.
ITC 2014
One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to fires resulting fromnatural (bush/forest fires) or human induced causes (arson, chemical or bomb explosion, poor
electric wiring or during renovation works). Also fires can result from earthquakes as was the caseduring 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji earthquake in Japan. Considering these issues, the 9th UNESCO
Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage focused on‘Protecting living cultural heritage from disaster risks due to fire’. Policies and planning measures
for reducing fire risks to cultural heritage especially in rapidly urbanizing context of developing
countries, special techniques for fire prevention and mitigation, emergency response as well asinterventions for long term restoration and rehabilitation of cultural heritage following disaster werediscussed during 2014 course.
Organizers and Participants
The training course is organized from the beginning in cooperation with the UNESCO, ICCROM,
ICOMOS and relevant institutions of the government of Japan. In 2014, the Toyota Foundation“Initiative Program” has proposed to support our training course by providing the budget for three
years. Participants will include managers of cultural heritage, disaster risk management experts,
decision makers and government officials involved in cultural properties or disaster management.

16

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

Participants List of the Previous Training Courses
ITC 2006, the 1st year
No

1

2

3

4

6

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

Poonacha KODIRA INDIA

Director (Conservation),
Ministry of Tourism andCulture Archaeological
Survey of India

Anup KARANTH

INDIA

Project Coordinator,
Urban Earthquake
Vulnerability Reduction
Project, United Nations
Development Programme(UNDP) India

Sektiadi

Lecturer,
Dept. of Archaeology, Faculty
INDONSESIA of Culture Sciences, Gadjah
Mada University

Manggar AYUATI

Fauzia QURESHI

Hussain KHADIMDRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Qutb Minar and its
Monuments, Delhi, WHS

INDONESIA

Prambanan Temple
Supervisor of Rescue
Compounds, WHS and its
on Preservation Division,
Surrounding Environment
Dept. of Cultural and Tourism,
Center for Preservationof Cultural Heritage of
Yogyakarta Province

PAKISTAN

Head of the Departmentof Architecture,
National College of Arts,
LahorePAKISTAN

Coordinator,
Disaster Management Desk
RDPI,
Rural Development Policy
Institute

Introduction

5

Name

Rohtas Fort, WHS

7

Seok JEONG

KOREA

Government employeeof Modern Construction Field,
Tangible Cultural Heritage
Bureau,Cultural Heritage
Historic Villages of Korea:
Administration,
Hahoe, WHS in Andong City
Republic of Korea

8

Woongju SHIN

KOREA

Concurrent Professor,
Dept. Interior Architecture,
Chosun College of Scienceand Technology

17

ITC 2007, the 2nd year
No

Name

1

A.K.M. Monowar
Hossain AKHANDCountryWork Position and Affiliation

BANGLADESH

Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
GOVT. of Bangladesh

2

Md. Rafiqul ALAMBANGLADESH

Executive Director,
DWIP UNNAYAN SONGTHA
(DUS)

3

Shijun HE

P. R. CHINA

Protection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural
Heritage Site - the Old Townof Lijiang

P. R. CHINA

Protection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural
Heritage Site - the Old Townof Lijiang

4

Cuiyu HE

5Maria Del Carmen
PERU
CORRALES PEREZ

Instituto Nacional De Cultura
Architect of the conservation
and Restoration Sub Direction

6

Partricia Isabel
GIBU YAGUE

PERU

Chief of Laboratory ofStructures,Japan-Peru Center for
Earthquake Engineering
Research and Disaster
Mitigation

7

Glen
CONCEPCIONCity Disaster Action Officer
and City Environment &PHILIPPINES Natural Resources Officer,
City Government of Vigan

8

Eric QUADRA

PHILIPPINES Architect, LGU-Vigan CityDRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Lal Bagh Fort, Dhaka,Bangladesh

Old Town of Lijiang , WHS

Historic Centre of Lima, WHS

Historic Town of Vigan, WHS

ITC 2008, the 3rd year
No

1

Choening DORJI

Country

BHUTANWork Position and Affiliation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Home
& Cultural Affairs Royal
Government of Bhutan

2

Karma TENZIN

BHUTAN

Civil Engineer,
Tashichhodzong Maintenance
Division, Dzongkhag
Administration

3

Mahmoud NEJATI

IRAN

Deputy of Research &Technical Consultant,
Recovery Project of Bam’s
Cultural Heritage

4

18

Name

Fatemeh
MEHDIZADEHSARADJIRAN

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Tashichho Dzong

Bam and its CulturalLandscape, WHS
Assistant Professor,
Department of Conservation,
Iran University of Science andTechnology

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

5

Kai Ube Prasad

NEPAL

Architect,
Planners’ Alliance for the
Himalayan & Allied Regions

6

Suman Narsingh
RAJBHANDARI

NEPALAssistant Professor,
Nepal Engineering College

7

Ivana FILIPOVICSERBIA

Architect Conservationist,
Cultural Heritage Preservation Lower Town in Belgrade
Fortress
Institute of Belgrade

8

Shang Chia CHIOU TAIWAN

9

Shen Wen CHIENTAIWAN

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in
Kathmandu Valley, WHS

Professor,
Department of Architecture
and Interior Design, National
Yunlin University of Science & Fort San Domingo in Tamsui
and Surround HistoricalTechnology
Buildings
Associate Professor,
Department of Fire Science,Central Police University

ITC 2009, the 4th year
No

1

Name

Rong YUCountryWork Position and Affiliation
Lecturer, Wenhua College,
Huazhong University of
Science and Technology

P.R.CHINA

Researcher,
Tongji University, National
Historic Cities ResearchCenterArchitect,World Heritage Conservation
Section/Ministry of Culture
and State Restructuring,
Department of Archaeology

2

Yuan DING

3

Ramesh
THAPALIYANEPAL

Suresh Suras
SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Archaeological Officer,
Ministry of Culture and state
Restructuring, Department ofArchaeology

JAMAICA

Senior Director,
Office of Disaster
Preparedness andEmergency Management
Senior Archaeologist,
Jamaica National Heritage
Trust

4

5

Pauline BROWN

6

Audene BROOKSJAMAICA

7

Sergius CIOCANU

MOLDOVA

8

Valeria
SURUCEANU

MOLDOVA

Dujiangyan, WHS

Introduction

P. R. CHINADRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in
Kathmandu Valley, WHS

Port Royal City

Head Scientific Researcher,
Institute of Cultural Heritageof the Academy of Science of
National Museum of Fine Arts
Moldova(Buildings and Collection)
Curator,National art Museum ofMoldova19

Observers in the Kathmandu Part of the ITC 2009No
Name
CountryWork Position and Affiliation1

Keshab P.
SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Chief,
National History Museum

2

Punya Sagar
MARAHATTA

NEPAL

Lecturer,
IoE, Tribhuvan University

3

Ajay LAL
CHANDRANEPAL

Assistant Professor,
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, IoE

4

Gyanin RAI

NEPAL

Chief (Administration, Information &Public Relation Section),
Lumbini Development Trust

5

Inu PRADHANSALIKE

NEPAL

Lecturer,
Khwopa Engineering College

6

Saubhagya
PRADHNANGANEPALHead of Culture and Archaeology Unit,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office7

Chandra Shova
SHAKYANEPAL

Head of Heritage Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office8

Prabin SHRESTHA NEPAL

Head of Urban Development Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

9

Ashok SHRESTHANEPALHead of Administration Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

10 Sainik Raj SINGHNEPALHead of Earthquake Safety Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

ITC 2010, the 5th year
No

1

2

3

4

20

Name

DechenTSHERING

Junko MUKAI

Alexander G
DWIGHT

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

BHUTAN

Structural Engineer,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Home
& Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan

BHUTAN

Deputy Chief Conservation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Homeand Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan

PALAU

Director, Historical
Preservation Officer,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Ministry of Community &Cultural Affairs

Sunny NGIRMANG PALAU

Palau National Registrar,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Palau Historic Preservation
Office

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Wangduephodrang Dzong

Bai: Traditional MeetingHouse1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

5

TeresaVILCAPOMAHUAPAYAPERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

6

Olga Keiko
MENDOZASHIMADAPERUJSPS Research Fellow,
Graduate School of Science& Engineering, Ritsumeikan
University

7

Marilene
TERRONES DIAZ

PERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

8

MilicaGROZDANICSERBIA

Director,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

9

Svetlana
Dimitrijevic
MARKOVICSERBIA

Kosancicev Venac, Belgrade
Architect - Conservator Senior Associate,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

TURKEY

Assistant Professor, Dr.
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Restoration Department

TURKEY

Research Assistant, PhD
Student,
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Structural Systems Division

Zeynep10
GUL UNAL

11

MeltemVATAN KAPTANCity of Cuzco, WHS

Eskigediz Heritage Site

Introduction

ITC 2011, the 6th year
No

Name

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

1

Celina RINCON

COLOMBIA

Assessor for the Heritage
Director Office,Ministry of Culture

History center of Santa Cruzde Mompox, WHS

2Cheryl NICHOLSJAMAICA

Training Manager,
Office of Disaster
Preparedness andEmergency Management

The Holy Trinity Cathedral

3

Jose Ramon
PEREZ OCEJOMEXICO

Part-time Teacher,
Universidad de las Américas(Puebla, MEXICO)Colonial City Centre of
Puebla, WHS

4

Julius
MWAHUNGA

KENYA

Senior Cultural Officer,
Ministry of State for National
Heritage and Culture,
Department of Culture

Lamu Old Town, WHS

5

Remigius
KIGONGOUGANDA

Conservator Sites andMonuments/ Site Manager,
Kasubi Tombs, WHS
Department of Museums andMonuments

6

Janhwij SHARMA

INDIA

Director (Conservation andWorld Heritage),
Archaeological Survey ofIndia, Ministry of Culture

Taj Mahal, WHS

21

7

Md. Aamir Hussain BANGLASHIKDER
DESH

Urban Local Body
Coordinator,
Bangladesh Municipal
Development Fund (BMDF)

Historic Mosque City ofBagerhat, WHS

8Qing WEI

P. R. CHINA

Deputy Director,
Cultural Heritage
Conservation Center, THAD

Kulangsu

P. R. CHINAPhD Candidate,
Urban Design and Planning
Department, Norwegian
University of Science andTechnology (NTNU)

Taoping Qiang Village

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

FIJI

Secretary General,
ICOMOS PASIFIKA

Levuka Town, WHS

INDIA

Sector Manager,
Gujarat State Disaster
Management Authority

Champaner - Pavagadh
Archaeological Park,
Panchamahal District,
Gujarat, WHS

Jongmyo Shrine, WHS

9

Yu WANGITC 2012, the 7th year
No

Name

1

Suzie YEE SHOW

2

Vikas LAKHANI

3

Sang sun JO

KOREA

Research Associate andCurator,Heritage Repair Division,
Cultural Heritage
Administration of KOREA

4

Rosli
BIN HAJI NOR

MALAYSIA

Head of Melaka World
Heritage Office,Historic City of Melaka, WHS
Melaka World Heritage Office
Bagan located in Manadalay
Division, Myanmar

5

Ni LEI WIN

MYANMAR

Communications Officer at
World Concern Myanmar,
Relief, Recovery andDevelopment Project inMyanma6

Helen
McCRACKENNEWZEALAND

Policy Adviser - Heritage,
Ministry for Culture andHeritage

Cuba Street Historic Area,
Wellington

7

Usman SHAMIMPAKISTAN

Programme Officer,
Kuchlak Welfare Society(KWS)

Mehrgarh, lies on the "Kachi
plain" of now Balochistan,
Pakistan

8

PoornaYAHAMPATHSRI LANKA

Consultant- External Resource Person,
Disaster Risk Management &Climate Change for GIZ

Sacred City of Kandy,
Sri Lanka, WHS

9

Sibel
YILDIRIM ESEN

TURKEYConservation Architect,
Ministry of Culture andTourism

Agora Archeological Sitein the Historic City of Izmir

Observers
No
Name

22

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

1

Dong Seok KANG

KOREA

A Section Chief of GIS, Cultural Heritage Administration

2

Thi My Thi TONGVIET NAM

PhD Student, International Environmental and Disaster
Management Laboratory, Graduate School of Global
Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 2015

ITC 2013, the 8th year
No

Name

1

Saleh Mohammad
SAMIT

2

Dian LAKSHMIPRATIWIWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

AFGHANISTANNational Manager,
Community Development
Programme
Aga Khan FoundationAfghanistan

Cultural Landscape andArchaeological Remains of
the Bamiyan Valley, WHS

INDONESIAHead of Archaeological
Section,Division of History,
Kotagede Heritage Area,
Archaeological and Museum,
Yogyakarta Historic City
Cultural Service Office,
Government of Yogyakarta
Special Territory

IRAN

Director,
Risk Management ResearchCenter(Associate Professor)
Risk Management ResearchCenter,International Institute ofEarthquake Engineering andSeismology

Country

Golestan Palace, Tehran
Bazaar and their surrounding
old urban fabrics, Tehran

Kambod AMINIHOSSEINI

4

Barbara CARANZA ITALY

MEC srlMonumental Cemetery of
Italian Army “LIGURIA” ARMY
Staglieno, Genoa
MILITARY COMMAND

5

Paola MUSSINIITALY

Researcher,
SiTI-Instituto Superioresui Sistemi Territoriali perl’Innovazione

Portovenere, Cinque Terre,
and the lslands (Palmaria,Tino
and Tinetto), WHS

6Zaha AHMED

MALDIVES

Assistant Architect,
Heritage Department,
Male' Republic of Maldives

Laamu atoll Isdhoo Old Friday
mosque in Maldives

NEPAL

Advisor,
Urban Planning andInfrastructure Development,
GFA Consulting Group (Nepal
Office), on behalf of GIZ/
The city core area of Tansen
Nepal
Municipality
Municipal Support
Team, Ministry of Urban
Development, Department
of Urban Development andBuilding Construction

7

Arjun KOIRALA

8

Kenechukwu Chudi
NIGERIAONUKWUBE

Director of Programs,
Development Education and
Sukur Cultural Landscape,
Advocacy
WHS
Resources Initiative for Africa(DEAR Africa)

9

Muhammad Juma
MUHAMMADTANZANIA

Director,
Urban and Rural Planning
Department of Urban and
Rural Planning

Stone Town of Zanzibar, WHS

THAILAND

Landscape Architect
Ministry of Culture, Fine Arts
Department,
Office of Architecture

Historic City of Ayutthaya,
WHS

Hatthaya
10 SIRIPHATTHANAKUN

Introduction

3

23

ITC 2014, the 9th year
No

Name

ALBANIAWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Project Manager, Deputy
Head of Office, Cultural
Heritage without Borders(CHwB)

Gjirokastra, WHS

1Elena MAMANI

2

Catherine FORBES AUSTRALIA

Built Heritage Advisor, GML
The Rocks Historic Urban
Heritage; Australia Institute ofPrecinctArchitects, Australia ICOMOS

3

Sasa TKALEC

CROATIA

Head of Office of Director,
Croatian Conservation
Institute

Castle Batthany in Ludbreg

4

Juan Diego
BADILLO REYESECUADOR

Architect Conservator
freelance, Volunteer SouthAmerica Coordinator

San Antonio del Cerro Ricode Zaruma

Bab El-Wazir, El-Darb AlAhmar District, Historic Cairo,
WHS

5

Abdelhamid
SAYED

EGYPT

Chairman, Conservator in
the Ministry of Antiquities,
Egyptian Heritage Rescue
Foundation (EHRF); Training& Capacity Building UnitManager, Egyptian Earth
Construction Association(EECA)

6

Anaseini
KALOUGATA

THE FIJI
ISLANDS

Senior Project Officer Levuka,
Historical Port Town ofDepartment of National
Levuka, WHS
Heritage, Culture and Arts

Central District Historic Area

7

Cinthia
CABALLEROHONDURAS

Urban control andplanification unit, Alcaldia
Municipal Del Distrito
Central (Gerencia Del Centro
Historico)

8

Jyoti PANDEYSHARMA

INDIA

Professor, Department ofArchitecture, Deenbandhu
Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology

Fatehpur Sikri, Agra District,
Uttar Pradesh, WHS

9Saut SAGALAINDONESIA

Senior Fellow, Resilience
Development Initiative

Gedung Sate Building,Governor office of West Java
Province

10 Alaa HAMDON

IRAQ

University Lecturer,
Researcher and Earthquake
Expert, Remote Sensing
Center, Mosul University

Al-Hadba Minaret and Nirgal
Gate / Mosul City

11 Richard NESTERNEWZEALAND

Technical Advisor – Historic,
Department of Conservation

Government Buildings
Historic Reserve

PAKISTAN

Regional Emergency
Officer (South Punjab),
Punjab Emergency Service(rescue1122), Emergency
Services Academy

Lahore Fort, WHS

12 Zafar SHAH

24

Country1.1 Background and Objectives of the 10th International Training Course 201513 Hussain SALEH

Kaichard
14 RUTTANAWONGCHAISYRIAHead of the scientificresearch commissions
department, Higher
Commission for Scientific
Research

THAILAND

Captain assistant, Klongtoey
fire station, second operation,
Vimanmek Palace, WHS
fire department, Bangkok
metropolitan

Crac des Chevaliers (inArabic: Castle Alhsn), WHS

Introduction25

1.2 Timetable of UNESCO Chair Programme on Cultural Heritage and Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage 2015, 10th year, Ritsumeikan University

26

Management, International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk

27

2 Formulating Disaster
Risk Management Plans
by ITC 2015 Participants2.1 Historic Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaíso, Chile

Marcela Hurtado SALDIAS
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

1. Introduction
The Historic Centre of Valparaíso (HCV), a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2003, faces a numberof hazards that could endanger its preservation, including earthquakes and fires. More than 10 years
after it was named a World Heritage Site, the HCV still lacks a Risk Management Plan organized by
the public and the municipality. As a result, we have lost a significant number of buildings, mostly
due to fire, while earthquakes have damaged others, most recently in 2010. On the whole, theHCV’s management faces social, economic and environmental problems that have delayed thedesign and implementation of a Risk Management Plan. Quite recently, in April 2014, a devastating
fire in Valparaíso destroyed more than 800 houses and left more than 12,000 of the city’s residents
homeless. The tragedy exposed how the city is unprepared for a disaster of this magnitude and thatthe city’s complex characteristic—its geography, urban layout and building materials—significantly
hinder management of this type of threat. Fire is, indeed, one of the most destructives hazards inthe city at the moment. This paper focuses on this specific risk, explaining the historic centre’s
conditions and a recovery plan based on its physical and social characteristics.

2. Attributes and values /stakeholders / OUVThe HCV was inscribed on the World Heritage List under criterion (iii): Valparaíso is an exceptional
testimony to the early phase of globalisation in the late 19th century, when it became the leading
commercial port on the sea routes of the Pacific coast of South America1).
This quality is linked to tangible and intangible components in the city, such as public buildings,
housing, public spaces, port facilities, and the city’s inhabitants strongly identified with the city (Fig.
1).
Table 1 summarizes the relation between the attributes – obtained from the Outstanding Universal
Values – and the specific values and stakeholders involved with them.

Bay of the Seaport City of Valparaíso

Fig. 1 Urban landscape of Valparaiso: housing and public spaces facing the harbour30

2.1 Historic Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaíso, Chile

Table 1 Attributes, values and stakeholders involve in the WHS Valparaíso

Scores for these
Stakeholders forvalue
these values
1 (low) to 3
(high)

Attributes of the HCVType ofattribute

Associated
ValuesParticular geographical andtopographical environment:“the bay, the narrow coastal
plains and the steep hills scoredby multiple ravines together
created the city’s amphitheatrelike layout.”

Immovable
Tangible

Environmental_ Urban_ Aesthetic_ Historic

3
3
2
2

Immovable
Tangible_Urban_ Environmental_ Social

3
2
2

Immovable
Tangible_ Historic_ Urban_ Technological_ Aesthetic

3
2
3
2

_ Manager ofthe site_ Residents_ Visitors /tourists

CulturalIntangible_ Social_ Economic_ Touristic

322_ Localcommunity_ Visitors /tourists_ Site manager“Represents an extraordinary
Culturalexample of industrial-age
Intangible
heritage associated with theinternational sea trade of the late Immovable
19th and early 20th centuries.”_ Historical_ Economic_ Cultural_ Social322
2_ Local trade /industry_ Inhabitants_Visitors /tourists

Urban layout: “with squares,
viewing points, promenades,
alleyways and stairways.

Strong sense of identity amongits inhabitants connected to thehistory and tradition related tothe sea.

_ Site manager_ Residents_ Visitors
Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants“The particularities of eacharchitectural object, groundedin the technological andentrepreneurial mind-set typicalof the era.”_ Site manager_ Urban planner_ Inhabitants_ Visitors

3. Natural disasters / hazard and vulnerabilities
Chile is located in one of the world’s areas with the highest seismic activity. The Nazca Plate runs along
the Pacific coast, and as a result, strong earthquakes constantly affect Chilean cities. In the case of
Valparaíso, the 1906 earthquake was tremendously destructive, razing entire neighbourhoods in thelower part of the city. However, the hills have more favourable conditions due to the soil type (rock)and construction material (wood). This has meant the structures in that area have held up better andfaced less destruction. The case of fire presents different problems. The hills are highly vulnerable
places for fire for many reasons, especially because of the conditions imposed by Valparaíso ‘sgeography; its complex layout of narrow streets, stairways and alleys typically remain inaccessible
to firefighters and safety equipment. In addition, most of the buildings are made of wood withno firewall. There are additional factors such as lack of maintenance, obsolescence of electricalinstallations, inoperative taps and scarce coverage by firefighters that contribute to fire’s hazards.
The most recent fire (2014) started in a forest and moved toward the lower part of the city, where it
destroyed consolidated areas. More than 800 houses were destroyed. The general increase in thetemperature also plays a significant role; hotter summers increase the risk of forest fires drastically.
For this reason the specific risk scenario for Valparaíso is from fire and not from earthquake or othernatural hazards (Fig. 2).

31

Fig. 2 Scenario

4. Risk mitigation measures
Mitigation measures against a devastating fire (or other threats) are grouped in five fields, linking
specific actions and actors in the process.
a. In the institutional framework, necessary actions would be:
・Improve network between different public institutions
・Define protocol action between public institutions
・Strengthen site management office・Enhance community collaboration on Disaster Risk Reduction
・Design a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the WHS
b. Measures related to legislation:・Integrate different levels and types of legislation related to risk preparedness
・Integrate Disaster Risk Management for the WHS in Valparaíso’s urban planning・Implement periodical maintenance plan for buildings in the WHS・Limit number of tourist facilities
c. In terms of preparedness, the actions are:・Enhanced firefighter capacities for special conditions of the site
・Improve the network of pipes, hydrants and/or ponds in the hills
・Improve conditions for fire detection in public and private buildings
・Evaluate state of conservation of buildings and public spaces
d. Mitigations related to urban mobility are:・Improve conditions in the urban space (cleaning, removing obstacles, installing signals in
critical points)
・Define escape routes and install signs

322.1 Historic Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaíso, Chilee. Finally, actions from the community:・Identify the different groups linked to the site and their roles and responsibilities
・Strengthen networks of community collaboration
・Identify community leaders・Strengthen and formalize the relationship between the community and public agencies
・Establish periodic simulation plans (drills) for residents and tourists

5. Emergency preparedness and response

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Considering that the city still lacks a Risk Management Plan, it is important to coordinate the different
actors involved and define their specific roles and all the elements of the problem. This is a mediumterm task, which should be initiated to deal with future disasters. It is important to link national
and international institutions related to heritage management in Valparaíso in order to establish
a regulation framework where the objective is preservation of the OUV of the WHS, in addition topeople’s lives, in the case of a disaster. Another important aspect to consider is the training of
human resources. This includes technicians in charge of the site, firefighters, military forces who cancollaborate in an emergency, community residents at the site and volunteers. Coordinated action isessential to respond to an emergency. Finally, an emergency fund for disasters should be provided,
including funding for the emergency phase and reconstruction. This fund would consist of local andnational contributions, as well as international
cooperation.

Fig. 3 Emergency response

For the specific case of Valparaíso, Fig. 3 explains the response to the supposed scenario. The
process leader has to be the Site Manager. During an emergency, the municipality (Site Manager) is
expected to have an active role leading and coordinating with emergency organizations. In the next
phase (transition), more institutions and groups are added, with some connections to the site always
under coordination by the Site Manager.

33

6. Recovery plan
The reconstruction plan (Fig. 4) is divided into three steps (short, medium and long term). The first,
very briefly, is the immediate response where urgent action must be taken to assist residents andprevent further damage to the buildings. This stage also includes an investigation of the causes of theincident and assessing the state of the properties. This step is critical to the design of the recovery
plan (the next step), which includes more actors as well as technical, economic and social aspects
to ensure better preparedness in the future. This stage may also include international assistancefor the designed risk reduction plans. The last phase, the implementation phase, should include
reconstruction and risk mitigation measures, such as more fire detection equipment in housing,
improvements to equipment in public spaces, improved water provision on the hills, and emergency
plans for the population.

Fig. 4 Recovery Plan.

References
1) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/959
2) Jigyasu R: Risk assessment of World Cultural Heritage: Tools & Methodology. Seminar ARP 2010
“Risk assessment in Heritage: a need or a luxury.” Conservation Institute (IC) of the Faculty ofEngineering of the University of Porto, 2010.
3) UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN: Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage. World Heritage
Resource Manual, 2010. http://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-disaster-risks/
4) Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales: Postulación de Valparaíso como Sitio del Patrimonio
Mundial / UNESCO. Cuadernos del Consejo de Monunentos Nacionales, 2004. http://www.
monumentos.cl/consejo/606/articles-48020_doc_pdf.pdf

34

2.2 Thapathali – TekuDobhanGhat Area, Kathmandu, Nepal

Hisila MANANDHAR
Urban Planner, Kathmandu Valley Development Authority

1. Introduction (Fig. 1)
Kathmandu Valley (KV) is the capital region of Nepal, covering an area of about 570 sq. km. The
primary river flowing through the valley is River Bagmati along with its numerous tributaries. The Valley
is divided into three districts of Kathmandu, Lalitpur (popularly known as Patan) and Bhaktapur. The
proposed heritage site is located along the Bagmati riverbank flanked by the two over urbanized
metropolitan cities. The river frontage of the site faces south towards Bagmati River and is about
1.95 km long. It is delineated by Vishnumati River at west and the Teku to Thapathali road converge
at the Patan Bridge at east. The proposed area lies under jurisdiction of two wards – 11 and 12 ofKathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC).

Fig.1 Site Location and Details
Source: KVDA &(Teku Thapathali Research Group Report, 1994, p. 2)

2. Historical Background (Fig. 2)
Bagmati River has been the religious and cultural lifeline of Kathmandu Valley for centuries. The
proposed site is one of the six most significant sites along the river. The most substantial role of theseghats＊1 is in traditional practice of funeral rites. Only temple complexes and shrines surrounded byagricultural land existed in the area in the earlier times. As of now, the area is surrounded by a chaotic
ribbon development consisting of hotels, commercial buildings, schools and private dwellings. The
development has spread and encroached upon the public threshold of the river ghats as well (Teku
Thapathali Research Group Report, 1994).
The present temple and sattal＊2 structures mostly date from the 19th century, when Rana prime
ministers constructed the temples following traditional Newari style with certain North Indian
influences in the use and adaptation of the shikhara style temples. A stepped podium gives themprominence in the courtyard formed by the sattals built around these central temples. JagannathTemple (1972), Teen Dewal (1850) and Radha-Krishna temple (1887) are the temples that werebuilt following the Shikhara style architecture. Laxmishwar temple (1813) and Tripureshwar temple
complex (1818) were built following more of the traditional Newari style architecture with tiered roofs
and sattal courtyard. Purneshwar temple originally followed the same style, but was reconstructedin Mogul style after the 1934 earthquake. A prominent example of strong Mogul influence could be

35

seen in Jung Hiranya Hem Narayan temple (aka Kalmochan temple), built in 1868 by then Prime
Minister Jung Bahadur Rana. Various akhadas＊3 were also built in the surrounding area of thetemple. Sanyasi, Vairagiand Udasi are the 3 akhadas of Kalmochan which were built for the purposeof temporary stay of the jogis, mainly for the pilgrimage purpose.A highly significant open shrine(consisting only of a small stone dedicated to a god - Bhairav) known as Pachali Bhariav is the
major focal point of the area. The foundation date of the shrine is unknown but the one of the earliest
inscriptions available dates back to 1682 AD. The shrine, surrounded by patis, is an important partof a yearly traditional procession and is very popular for marriage ceremonies (Teku Thapathali
Research Group Report, 1994).
Various proposals have been made for the rehabilitation of the area in order to preserve cultural
heritage and promote tourism in the area. Proposal of Temples and Ghat restoration was done by
Teku-Thapathali Research Group (1993) and few renovations and reconstructions were done on thetemples in mid 90s. Some of the sattals have been adapted to various purposes such as National
Braille Library; Shelter for old age population; Dental clinic; Offices of Guthi Sansthan divisions
etc. A walkway project has been proposed by Kathmandu Metropolitan City Office – Building and
Heritage Division for the stretch of the river banks from Teku to Thapathali in 2015 (Coming soon:
The Bagmati Heritage Walkway, 2015).

Fig. 2 Site Plan showing cultural properties
Source: Edited from (Kathmandu Metropolitan City Office, 2014)＊1 The term ghat refers to an embankment structure, a series of steps leading down to a water body, usuallya holy river. They are broad flights of stairs delivering a safe and easy access to the water’s edge andare usually constructed of dressed stones and bricks. Ghats are useful for both mundane purposes (suchas cleaning) and religious rites like ritual bathing or ablutions that are considered to be imperative before
performing numerous religious practices(Manandhar & Joshi, 2011).
＊2 Sattal is a long sojourn rest house usually occupied by the priests and their assistants responsible for therituals, festivals and upkeep of the temple and its associated buildings. The sattal (2 storeys) usually createsa courtyard space around the temple. The ground floors are partially open for public use where itinerant
pilgrims are given night shelter＊3 In Hinduism, Akhara/ Akhadais an organization of different sects. Akhadas are divided into different types
according to the concept of god they worship - Shaiva akhadas for Shaivism followers, Vaishnava or
vairagiakhadas for followers of Vishnu and Kalpwasis for followers of Lord Brahma.

36

2.2 Thapathali – TekuDobhanGhat Area, Kathmandu, Nepal

3. Risk Analysis (Fig. 3)
Kathmandu Valley is tectonically located on the collision zone of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate.
Due to the geological formation of its land that comprises of soft sedimentary layers; the valley isconsidered as one of the highest vulnerable areas to the earthquake. In addition the rapid andhaphazard urbanization has added to its susceptibility of liquefaction. The risk analysis chart shows
catastrophic as well as progressive hazards that might affect the site.
As the cultural properties of the site have suffered few damages due to the recent earthquake,the temple and other structures are very vulnerable to the risks of another earthquake. Due to theproximity of the site to the dense mixed use residential area, human lives as well as infrastructure
are also under threat.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 3 Risk Analysis Chart

4. Disaster Scenario (Fig. 4)
For the purpose of exercise, a disaster scenario of earthquake similar to the Gorkha earthquake ofApril 2015 is chosen. An earthquake of M 8 strikes at the western Nepal on a weekday 9 AM, i.e.
busy office hour period. The susceptible liquefaction factor aggravates the situation and creates
settlements of some residences in the area. In addition, the haphazard urbanization leads to many
narrow roads being blocked. Few of the temples also collapse as they are already weak due to therecent earthquake. People panic and try to run to safe areas and instigate stampede. Infrastructure37

such as water suppply, sewerage, and electricity lines are disrupted at few points. The major road iscongested with traffic creating more panic and confusion. Some people try to take advantage andloot the valuables from the temples after the shaking has subsided.

Fig. 4 Disaster Scenario for the site

5. Disaster Mitigation Measures & Recovery Activities
As an emergency preparedness, retrofitting of the sattals / courtyards need to be performed so as
to create safe space for storage of cultural heritage properties and provision of temporary shelter
space. Emergency evacuation could be done towards ghat areas as they might prove to be safer
than other built up areas. The Ward chiefs, KMC’s Heritage and Disaster Management chiefs, Local
community leaders (Club leaders) – commonly known as Tole Sudhar Samiti etc. would be theemergency contact persons. The recovery activities that need to be implemented in short term andlong term periods are given in the following Table.1.

6. Conclusion
The proposed site lies in the central area of Kathmandu Valley and forms an important component of
Bagmati River. The importance of the heritage site is felt by general public as they continue to visit
and carry on the daily ritual practice. Nevertheless, the site does not appear as a priority for related
agencies related since they are more concerned with World Heritage Sites. Hence, preliminary
restoration activities need to be initiated in order to attract investments for further implementation ofrehabilitation action plans.

382.2 Thapathali – TekuDobhanGhat Area, Kathmandu, Nepal

Table 1S.
No.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCIESMITIGATION ACTIONSPRIMARY

SECONDARYFUNDINGPROVISIONSSHORT TERM
Training on damage
assessment survey toengineers and architects

Nepal Engineers
Association (NEA),
Society of NepaleseArchitects (SONA)

Universities, DoA,
KMC

NEA, SONA
Volunteering

2

Damage Assessment of
cultural properties (movable/
immovable)

NEA, SONA

Universities, DoA,
KMC

NEA, SONA
Volunteering

3

Prioritization of monuments/
structures to reconstruct

DoA

KMC, Guthi
Sansthan, Local
Community, NEA,
SONA

DoA, NGOs

4

Emergency measures for
affected cultural properties- Shoring/ Scaffolding of thetemples/ structures

DoA & KMC

Local Committee,
SONA, NEAMoCTCA, Local
Committees, Private
sectors around the
area

DoA

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

1

LONG TERM
1

Set up a consortium/ authority
to conduct projects of
DoA
reconstruction assistance

KMC, Ward Offices,
Local community

2

Reconstruction of culturalproperty structures as perpriority

DoA, KMC, Guthi
KMC, Local Volunteer Sansthan, Private
Groups, SONA, NEA Sectors such as
Banks

3

Restoration of water supply
KVWSMBsystem and sewerage system

4

Restoration of
telecommunication lines

5

DoA

Ward Offices, KMC

MoUD

Nepal
Telecommunications
Authority

Ward Offices, KMC

Nepal
Telecommunications
Authority

Restoration of electricity lines

Nepal Electricity
Authority

Ward Offices, KMC

Nepal Electricity
Authority

6

Improvements in road access

Department of Roads
Ward Offices, KMC(DoR)

Ministry of PhysicalInfrastructure andTransport (MoPIT)

7

Encourage and assure
continuity of cultural activities
in the area

Caretakers of theshrines

Caretakers of theshrines, Local
Community leaders

Local Community
leaders

References
1) A temple of dubious reputation, Nepali Times(1), 2000.
2) Coming soon: The Bagmati Heritage Walkway, Nepali Times, 2015, March 13-19.
3) DoA. (n.d.):(Kathmandu Valley's Cultural Properties
Inventory), Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.
4) Kathmandu Metropolitan City Office. (n.d.): Retrieved from www.kathmandu.gov.np/
5) Kathmandu Metropolitan City Office: The Teku - Thapathali Walkway Ahead, 2014.
6) KVDA & UNDP.: Support to Develop Risk Sensitive Land Use Plan (RSLUP) and Building ByeLaws of Kathmandu Valley, 2014.
7) Manandhar H & Joshi M: Steps to the Heavenly Abode: Ghats of Kathmandu. BusinessArchitecture, 2011, April.
8) Shilpakar M: Tripureshwar Mahadev Temple, Business Architecture, 2012, August.
9) Teku Thapathali Research Group Report, 1994.

39

2.3 Cultural Heritage in Middelstum, Groningen, the Netherlands

Ilse A.E. DE VENT
Senior inspector, Dutch State Supervision of Mines

1. Introduction
Gas withdrawal induces seismic events in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. An area thathas never been exposed to earthquakes before is now facing a major hazard. In the context of theInternational Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage 2015, therisks for cultural heritage in the historical village of Middelstum have been assessed. The potential
consequences of an earthquake are compared to those of a strengthening campaign.

2. The historical village of Middelstum
The north-eastern part of Groningen is characterized by flat, open polderland scattered with villages.
There one finds some of the oldest remaining buildings in the Netherlands: brick masonry churches
dating back to the 13th century. A typical, well-preserved example of such a village is Middelstum.
Among the characteristic elements of Middelstum is a cluster of three wierden, man-made refuge
mounds, a radial street pattern, and a strict boundary with water ways. Architectural features include
the monumental 15th century church with wall paintings, historical buildings in the central area
(protected village view), a windmill and several listed masonry houses from the early 20th century.
Fig. 1 gives an overview of the cultural heritage attributes.

Fig. 1 Cultural heritage in Middelstum

3. Induced seismicity
Groningen has another, hidden asset: Europe’s largest on-shore gas field. Government revenue
amounts to about 10 to 15 billion euro on a yearly basis, circa 9 % of the total Dutch revenue in2013. Its benefits, however, come with a drawback: induced seismicity. While this phenomenon was
subject of discussion and research since the late 1980s, the size of its potential impact was only
realized in 2012, when a relatively strong earthquake (M = 3.6 at a very shallow depth of 3 km) struck
the village of Huizinge1).
The Huizinge earthquake was the onset for a series of studies to better assess the risks of gas
withdrawal in Groningen. These turned out to be much higher than expected: many of the Dutch
masonry buildings are not earthquake-resistant. Therefore, a large-scale strengthening program has
been proposed2).

40

2.3 Cultural Heritage in Middelstum, Groningen, the Netherlands

4. Risk assessment
Seismic events can have a devastating impact on cultural heritage. To truly assess this risk, not only
the direct impact of an earthquake needs to be taken into account, but also its indirect effects. For
the purpose of this ITC, two scenarios have been considered, see Fig. 2.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 2 Two scenarios.

The first scenario is that of a strong earthquake hitting the village of Middelstum. This would directly
affect cultural heritage, for instance by damaging buildings. Indirect effects could include theoutbreak of fire, a dike burst, or liquefaction of a wierde. Valuable collections or paintings could be
at risk when, for example, the fire brigade is not informed on their existence. While this could leadto loss of material and objects, it should be realized that some cultural heritage attributes may alsopose a threat in themselves, like high chimneys, fragile buildings and narrow streets.
The second scenario investigates the potential impact of the proposed strengthening campaign.
Beginning 2015 over 60 % of all one-family houses in the area were assumed not to comply withthe proposed norms for seismic resistance3). Reinforcing these structures would make typical Dutchbuildings less vulnerable to seismic loading. Initial plans were to restructure 3000 buildings in 2015
alone, aiming at a similar amount in 20164) and probably continuing for several years.
The effect of a large-scale, regional strengthening campaign can hardly be overestimated. It would
have an enormous impact on buildings and inhabitants alike. While improving structural response,
the removal or reinforcement of architectural features would lead to a loss of original material andcould easily damage the characteristic village view. In addition, full-scale implementation would
imply people temporarily having to leave their houses. The social impact of such a campaign
therefore needs careful consideration, since it may affect both tangible and intangible cultural
heritage aspects associated with village life. The question arises: is this the appropriate way to
reduce the risk ?

5. Prevention and mitigation
Based on above assessment, a number of risk-reducing measures are proposed, see Fig. 3. Apartfrom the vulnerability of existing building stock, strengthening and lack of (shared) knowledge areindicated as threats. A distinction has been made between organizational and technical measures,and between preventive and mitigating ones5).
The most direct preventive measure would be to reduce or change gas extraction. Monitoringand documenting the state of objects would help to identify damage in an early state. In order41

for strengthening of buildings not to become a threat in itself, cultural heritage experts and local
communities should be closely involved, for example in developing strategies for prevention andrecovery. This would also provide a more solid basis for emergency response, allowing coordinatedactions of stakeholders in cultural heritage and disaster risk management.
Considering the village of Middelstum more specifically, cultural heritage can prove to be beneficial
in times of disaster, too. For example, the wierden provide safe spaces for evacuation in case offlood events, see Fig. 4, while the radial street pattern allows easy access and exit. Specific attention
for the role of cultural heritage elements within disaster risk management could strengthen theirposition in daily life.

Fig. 3 Prevention and mitigation measures.

6. Recommendations
Three pilot projects are proposed for the Groningen area, see Fig. 5. They are aimed to better
integrate cultural heritage and disaster risk management. The first pilot is to develop a smartphone
application that assists in assessing and documenting the state of a building, while simultaneously
providing feedback on preventive measures. The second proposal is to set up an emergency
response training aimed at cultural heritage, by using a serious game that integrates real building
information with the different stakeholder roles. The third suggestion is to organize local workshops
in which community, municipality, and experts from cultural heritage and disaster risk management
can discuss, share knowledge and views, and come to an integrated and supported approach.

7. Conclusions
While the impact of a major earthquake is being considered for the Groningen area, the impact oflarge-scale strengthening seems underestimated up till now. For rational decision making, the scopeof disaster risk management should be widened, not only focusing on fatalities and direct costs incase of a disaster, but also including indirect effects on well-being6). Cultural heritage is part of thiswell-being and should therefore be an integral part of disaster risk management. Indeed, cultural
heritage can help reduce the impact of a disaster. The ITC in itself proves how valuable a dialogue
between professionals from disaster risk management and cultural heritage is – and how much thisis needed.

422.3 Cultural Heritage in Middelstum, Groningen, the Netherlands

Fig. 4 Emergency plan for Middelstum and the role of cultural heritage in it

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 5 Pilot projects.

References
1) de Vent I.A.E.: Bevingen, bodemstijging en zinkgaten: onvoorziene effecten van ondergrondse
mijnbouw in Nederland. WTA studiedag Schade aan bouwkundig erfgoed door bewegingen in de
ondergrond, 20 November 2015, Antwerpen, Belgium. English version titled Tremors & sinkholes:
unforeseen effects of mining in The Netherlands, submitted for the 10th International Conferenceon Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, 13-15 September 2016, Leuven, Belgium, 2016.
2) NAM: Hazard and risk assessment for induced seismicity Groningen – Update 1st May 2015.
3) Stuurgroep NPR: Impact assessment Nederlandse Praktijk Richtlijn Aardbevingsbestendig
bouwen, 8 January 2015.
4) Centrum Veilig Wonen: Tweede kwartaalrapportage 2015, 28 August 2015.
5) ISO 17776: Petroleum and natural gas industries – offshore production installations – guidelines
on tools and techniques for hazard identification and risk assessment, 2000.
6) UNISDR: Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management. Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.

Acknowledgements
This paper has been written in the personal capacity of the author. The input from the Dutch Cultural
Heritage Agency, Heritage Inspection, Libau, Ministry of Defence, Municipality of Loppersum,
National Coordinator Groningen, Province of Groningen, Safety Region Groningen, Stichting Oude
Groninger Kerken, UNESCO Netherlands and others is gratefully acknowledged.

43

2.4 Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ribt Ala Edeen,
A Case Study from the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestine
Bashar I. HUSSEINIOld City of Jerusalem Revitalization Program, Welfare Association

Fig. 1 General view of the Old City of Jerusalem

1. Introduction
This article briefs some of the important points concerning theknowledge gained in the R-DMUCH course for the case of asite inside the Old City of Jerusalem.
The Old City of Jerusalem (Fig. 1) is located in the center ofthe modern city of Jerusalem with an area of about 0.9 km2,
the population is less than 40,000. The Old City gained its
outstanding universal value not just of its historical, architecturalvalues but also through its importance to the three- monolethetic
religions. The Old city along with its surrounded historical walls
was been inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in 1981
and as a ‘World Heritage Site in Danger’ in 1982.
The Old City is suffering from the deterioration of the social,economic and housing conditions of its Palestinian residents
as well as the deterioration of the physical conditions of its
buildings, monuments and utilities. The ongoing conflictalso affects its heritage and its management, especially thearchitectural heritage; which is been clearly seen through Fig. 2 Seismic Hazard Map
underground excavations, demolition of some historicalbuildings and the housing crisis for the Arab Palestinians because of preventing Palestinians (aswell as adding obstacles) for the construction of new buildings inside the city. This affects the Old
City through the huge pressure implied from its residents to add inappropriate additions to thehistorical buildings. On the other hand, the Old City is located in a seismic area (Fig. 2), where it isexpected that every 100 years a strong earthquake affect the Middle East including Jerusalem city.

44

2.4 Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ribt Ala Edeen,
A Case Study from the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestine

Strong earthquakes rocked Jerusalem and its environs several times throughout the history and thelast of which occurred in 1927 (7-8 Richter) caused loss of life and buildings. Strong earthquakes are
expected to strike the region again with a 90% probability in the next 50 years.

2. Selecting a Case Study

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

A historical group of buildings was been
selected as a case study to formulate a DRMP
inside the old city “Ribat Ala-Aldin al-Basir andRibat al-Mansouri (Fig. 3)”, which is one of
the earliest Mamluk buildings in the Old Cityof Jerusalem. It was found in year 1267 andoriginally built as a pilgrim’s hospice, later,
during the ottoman period was used as a prison
until 1914 and since then used as a residential
complex. The site area is located near one of
the entrances of the Aqsa Mosques (which isthe 3rd important religious building for Muslim in Fig. 3 The Entrance of Ribat al-Mansouri
the world). It consists of a group of buildings, mainly two ribats which consists of cells (small rooms)
around inner courtyard. During the last decades, new concrete additions were added to the cells
covering most of the courtyard.

3. Site Analysis (Attributes, values)
The site was analyzed thoroughly in addition to the site attributes and values (Fig. 4). In addition tothat the management of the site includes several parties: * the owner (the Jordanian governmental
and Awqaf endowment department), * Palestinian NGOs Heritage organizations, * the Palestinian
Authority, * the Israeli Occupation Authorities (including Antiquities Authorities, Jerusalem municipality
and other Israeli departments such as fire department, civil defense, Police, parks, nature, …etc),
and * the International team as it is a world heritage site like UNESCO (ICOMOS/ICCROM experts)

Fig. 4 One of the tables showing the analysis of the attributes and its values and site45

4. Risk Assessment
After the risk assessment was done to the site and the city as a whole, several hazards and threats
were identified whether it is natural or man-made in which the most catastrophic hazards are
Earthquakes, political conflict, underground excavations, and unplanned expansion.
The Vulnerabilities of the site are: 1) urban pressure, 2) high density, 3) lack of maintenance, 4)
past Interventions and inappropriate additions, 5) Concrete Usage in restoration projects, 6) lackof Management Strategy, 7) lack of proper Infrastructure, 8) lack of stakeholders’ coordination, 9)
narrow streets, 10) small entrances and 11) limited accessibility, 12) lack of monitoring and alarmsystem as well as 13) weak structures.
The impact of the above vulnerabilities may vary depending on the hazards and threat as well as
its density, which may cause loss of life and loss of historical buildings, structural damage and lossof values.

5. Mitigation
The suggested mitigation measures included are:
- Short term measures such as advanced Inventory and documentation with structural study andbehavior with survey of the underground layers, soil examination especially the tunnels and its
surroundings. Extended survey of the site and surroundings including 3D laser scanning of thecurrent situation as well as simulation of the disaster (mainly earthquake). Applying TechnicalMeasures for strengthening consolidation of historic structures against earthquakes. Help to
propose evacuation plan including new exits, emergency routes safe areas and signage systemespecially to open areas like Aqsa Mosque yards (Fig. 5). Specialized Training for Involved
People in Risk Mitigation, Preparedness- Long-term measures such as Help Create Community based Risk Management committee, drills
and of course the political solution to be solved. Propose special activities for professionals aswell as community members in Formulating Fire /escape Risk Plan, Earthquake Risk Plan

Fig. 5 Evacuation Routes-Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan:

6. Emergency Response and Recovery plan
In the event of significant damage to the site, response and recovery measures are required.
Immediate action should address the immediate humanitarian response focusing on making the site
safe. After that the inspection of the site with rapid assessment including preliminary documentationin the medium term will be applied in which actions is taken so as to prevent further loss and stabilize
the unstable structure. Advanced documentation in the long term should be taken as a first step in46

2.4 Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ribt Ala Edeen,
A Case Study from the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestine

preparing the redevelopment of a comprehensive DRMP for site including hopefully the substantial
reconstruction of additions and redevelopment of the site to minimize the threats (Fig. 6).

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 6 Preliminary Recovery plan

7. Conclusion
The main goal of this assignment was to formulate a DRM plan to prepare a safe environment for
Ribat Ala Edeen site inside the Old City of Jerusalem to be a model for the other sites inside the oldcity as well as Palestine as a whole. the assignment has helped in identifying what is required toachieve the above:- Help in establishing and Outreach Program for risk preparedness/ mitigation to minimize thethreats as possible.
- Help in creating a Special Program to formulate a Cultural DRM Policy to formulate an Earthquake
risk plan for the site as well as fire risk plan for the site including evacuation plan.
- Help in rehabilitating/consolidating buildings so as to be Earthquake proof and minimize the lossof people and Heritage to minimum.
Formulating DRM in this case concentrated on the community based / NGO level as the reaching
the other levels of engagement needs a political decision and solution for the city of Jerusalem. Until
now, Jerusalem is still under occupation and dispute is not likely to be resolved in the next few years,
so the proposed work need to understand the status quo of the city as well as respecting the parties
involved, especially the occupied side. This can be done also with the help of International Actors
such as UNESCO/ICOMOS ..etc.

References
1) Rohit Jigyasu, Vanicka Arora : CULTURAL HERITAGE IN URBAN AREAS - A Training Guide,published by Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University(RitsDMUCH), Kyoto, Japan, 2013.
2) Welfare Association - OCJRP Archives, HYPERLINK "http://ocjrp.welfare-association.org/en/"
http://ocjrp.welfare-association.org/en/
3) Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architectural Study by Michael Hamilton Burgoyne, D. S. Richards, British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem by the World of Islam Festival Trust, 1989.
4) http://www.sasparm.ps/en/?page=one&cat=21 website visited in 9-8-2015
5) Other Internet websites

47

2.5 Water-based Cultural Landscape Values and Disaster Risk
Management of Ban Pak Klong in Bangrakam Sub-district,Phitsanulok Province, Thailand
Witiya PITTUNGNAPOO
Faculty of Architecture, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand

1. Introduction
Ban Pak Klong is a small traditional fishing village located along the Yom River in Bangrakam Subdistrict in Phitsanulok Province, the North Region of Thailand. The total area of this sub-district isabout 3 square kilometers with the total of population of 4,653 persons who are Buddhist (100percentages). Ban Pak Klong has reflected how people have learnt to adapt their living spaces
in harmony with flooding. Adaptability in water-based architectures and water-based culturallandscapes have been unique attributes which can be seen in either tangible or intangible aspects(Bangrakam Sub-District Municipality, 2014).

2. Water-based Cultural Landscape Values
There are various attributes and values of water-based cultural landscapes in Ban Pak Klong;especially their local knowledge on adaptability to flooding which can be seen in water-basedarchitecture (raft houses, and stilt houses), water-based landscapes, water-based livelihood,
wooden canoes, and fishing wicker works. However, the main attributes with high values are waterbased architecture which was selected for further assessment to deal with flooding disaster in thisstudy; as its values can be seen both tangible and intangible as shown in Table 1.
Table 1Attributes:
Water-based Architectures
Raft houses

Stilt houses

48

Associated Values
Tangible

Intangible

・Local wisdom
・Rarity・Unique housing characteristics - Integrated knowledge to water- Bamboo floatation- Floating houses/ Rafts- Local building technology- Wooden stilt houses-Amphibious ways of living- Wooden structure/ bamboo(Swimming,
elements
canoe rowing, fishing)- Built with local materials- Fishing instruments wicker- Open planned
works- Adaptability of domestic
spaces・Cultural values- Vernacular building styles/
・Continued use
Identity- Practical use during wet/ dry- Water-based culture
season- Water-based festival
・Ecological value- Wooden canoe racing- Friendly environment/ Energy
saving・Economic value- Fishing for living
・Traditional settlement- Amphibious settlement
・Visual value- River link
・Cultural value- Daily used of wooden canoes- Fishing instruments wicker
works- Bamboo pontoon/Buoyancy

2.52.5
Water-based
Water-based
CulturalCulturalLandscapeLandscape
ValuesValuesandandDisasterDisaster
Risk
Risk
Management
Management
of of
Ban
Ban
Pak
Pak
Klong
Klong
in
in Bangrakam Sub-district, Phitsanulok Province, Thailand

3. Disaster Risk Management
Long stay flooding is a potential scenario; due to several driving forces which are monsoon anddepression, climate change, upper stream dam collapsed due to earthquake, mismanagement ofheavy rain, block from upper and lower built-up areas, rapid urbanisation, road development, lossof agricultural land and natural drainage system, expansion of built-up areas, and failure of land
use planning. These rampant factors have resulted in long stay flood scenario leading to building
collapsed, electricity leakage, some people injured, land sinking, soil erosion, road blocked, nowater supply, no food, no toilets, loss of belongings, no living spaces, loss of kinship, and decline inwater-based architectures and cultural landscapes in eventually as presented in Fig. 1.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 1 Risk Analysis

To deal with the long stay flooding scenario in more comprehensively; there are three salient
mitigation approaches will be implemented, namely, physical, social, and awareness interventions
in either short term or long term and for achieving this collaboration across relevant organizations isrequired to work together as illustrated in Table 2.

49

Table 2 Flooding Mitigation Approaches for Water-based Architecture

Impacts- Damage of property/materials- Collapsed Buildings- Loss of Safety/ Loss oflives- Lack in access tofood, water, toilets,
basic infrastructure- Road blocked- Loss of vernaculararchitecture- Loss of local wisdom- Relocation/ Derelict
houses- Decline in waterbased uniqueness- Repairing/
maintenance costs- Decline in kinshipsettlement- Health and mental
problem

Mitigation Approaches
Short termLong term

Physical Interventions- Strengthen structure- Apply water-resistantmaterials to exposed
areas- Proper material uses
- Green buffer zone
- Soil stabilisation- Supply of daily uses

Physical Interventions- Flood risk
management policy- Flooding adaptation
strategies- New building
development- Erosion control- Green embankment- Underground watertank- Infrastructuredevelopment- Dam reinforcement

Social Interventions- Building adaptation
Guide- Promote kinship- Regular maintenance- Flood forecasting andwarning system- DSM teamwork- Operational plan

Social Interventions- Wetland Protection
Act- Building regulation- ssue land tenure- Mitigation initiatives- Mitigation teambuilding- Disaster logistics plan
- Flood insurance-Local Heritage team

Awareness
Interventions-Flood preparedness-Health guide-Increase community
ties-Knowledge transfer

Awareness
Interventions-Community capacity
building on local
heritage management-Workshop/ DRM
Trainings-Local heritage
preservation

Vulnerabilities- Proximity to the river- Weak structure- Improper
reconstruction- Lack of maintenance- Non-waterproof
materials

50

Stakeholder
Local Level:- Bangrakam
Municipality (Mayor)
Provincial Office- Provincial Office ofDisaster Risk
- Prevention & Mitigation
Dep.
- Temple (Priest)- Provincial Tourism’- Local communities
Regional academic:- Naresuan University(Architecture,
Sociology,
Humanities,
Heritage, Agriculture,
Environment etc.)
National Level:- Office of National
Resources andPlanning- ICOMOS, Thailand- Department of Cultural
Promotion- AnthropologicalCentre of Ministry of
Culture- Department of Tourism
International Level:- ICOMOS, Thailand- UNESCO Bangkok- SEAMEO SAPAFA

2.52.5
Water-based
Water-based
CulturalCulturalLandscapeLandscape
ValuesValuesandandDisasterDisaster
Risk
Risk
Management
Management
of of
Ban
Ban
Pak
Pak
Klong
Klong
in
in Bangrakam Sub-district, Phitsanulok Province, Thailand

4. Recovery Plan and Emergency Response
The recovery plan and emergency response has been proposed in advanced to relevant stakeholders
in line with physical, social, and awareness interventions to achieve future sustainability. Available
funding sources are crucial factor to push planning into practice that challenges for locals to work
collaboratively with relevant organizations. Each stage of recovery plan with more details is illustrated
in Fig. 2.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 2 Recovery Plan

Emergency plan during flooding has been designed by integrating with indigenous knowledge.
Evacuation routes are considered for flow of people, flow of movable heritage, and flow of foodsupply based on kinship settlements; while canoes are used as emergency engines to evacuate
people which can be used as storage and waste collecting vessels also. Existing evacuation centers
are officially provided by local authorities and emergency response team should be assigned with
relevant bodies, namely, the Mayor of Bangrakam Sub-District who is a site manager, local officers,
local leaders, security team, and evacuation center hosts.

5. Conclusion
This paper reflects integration between cultural heritage and disaster management. Before
investigating impacts or preparing for disaster risk management; it is important to understand valuesof cultural heritage first. This paper shows how importance of water-based architecture and culturallandscape are; as these areas have been few considered by Thai scholars. Without proper planningand flooding risk management water-based traditional communities as national heritage settlementof Thailand may be no longer exist. Further applications on how to achieve sustainable and resilient
future are challenging to maintain local heritage to survive against disaster.

References
1) Bangrakam Sub-District Municipality: 3 Year Development Plan (2015-2017), Bangrakam District,Phitsanulok Province, 2014.
2) Bangrakam Sub-District Municipality: Action Plan of 2015, Bangrakam District, Phitsanulok
Province, 2014.

51

2.6 Disaster Risk Management for Bam and its Cultural Landscapein IranMohammad RAVANKHAH
Academic assistant in Department of Environmental Planning & PhD candidate in International
Graduate School: Heritage Studies, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany

1. Introduction
Iran is situated in the Middle East and borders the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Oman. Iranis one of the oldest civilization worldwide according to its cultural evidence such as Shahr-i Sokhta(Burnt City) dating back to 3200 BC. “The Iranian plateau is part of the major Eurasian plate with thetectonic setting of the region dominated by the collision of the Arabian, Eurasian and Indian plates”(Manafpour, 2003) and therefore, the major destructive natural hazard in Iran is earthquake.
One of the recent tragic seismic events in Iran was a magnitude 6.6 earthquake which struck the cityof Bam in December 2003 and caused a serious loss of life and enormous destruction of cultural
heritage (Fig. 1). The city of Bam is located in a desert environment in the southeastern of Iran,and “the origins of Bam can be detected to the Achaemenid period, 6-4th cent. B.C.” (Bam’s WH
nomination, 2004). Immediately following the earthquake, Bam and its Cultural landscape has been
inscribed on the UNESCO WH list in 2004 through an emergency nomination.

2. Heritage Value Assessment
The most visible part of the property is Arg-e Bam (Bam Citadel) which was residential till 19th
century and was gradually abandoned through migration of local people to the buildings within theirdate palm orchards surrounding the citadel. Bam citadel is an outstanding example of fortified andtrading settlement in the Central Asian region that was located at the crossroads of the Silk Road
trade routes (Bam’s WH nomination, 2004). The structure of this well-known earthen architecture
is based on combined mud layer (Chineh) with sun-dried mud bricks (Khesht). Another importantelement of the property is Qanat which is an ancient underground irrigation system vital for continuityof cultivation in such an arid environment. The values of the property and its setting (Fig. 1) havebeen assessed in regard to the following tangible and intangible attributes by a value assessment
matrix, developed in the ITC workshop 2015.
・Tangible attributes: Arg-e Bam, surrounding architectural structures, Qanat, date palm orchards,
archaeological sites, surrounding vernacular architecture, valuable collections in the citadel;・Intangible attributes: earthen construction know-how, religious rituals and ceremonies in thecitadel, social structure of Qanat water distribution system, traditional life-style.

Fig. 1 Values and associated attributes of Bam and its Cultural landscape. Arg-e Bam, before the earthquake ©Fernand
Mobu, 1999; and after the earthquake ©Moh Ravankhah, 200852

2.6 Disaster Risk Management for Bam and its Cultural Landscape in Iran

3. Disaster Risk Assessment

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

In order to identify and analyse disaster risks, the elements of risk including ‘hazard’ and ‘vulnerability’need to be assessed. Vulnerability itself can be determined by a combination of exposure, sensitivity,and existing DRM system. Apart from structural sensitivity, vulnerability of cultural properties tonatural hazards is greatly linked to pre-disaster interventions. In the case of Arg-e Bam, Langenbach(2005, p. 1) argues that it was not only the earthquake caused such a huge damage to the citadel,but “the collapse of the walls was caused largely by a combination of the effects of the additivechanges made to the walls during recent restorations (…), damage from termites, and loss of thecohesion of the clay from drying out”. Some other factors such as improper interventions resulting
in changes to the original plans and seasonal winds and sandstorms contributing to poor seismicresistance of Bam citadel are also mentioned by Mokhtari, Nejati, and Vatandoust (2008, p.314).
A disaster scenario has been developed for the case of Bam. In an integrated approach, the above
mentioned risk elements have been assessed “in a multi-hazard context considering primaryhazard, secondary hazards, and potential human-induced threats and human-errors during andafter a disaster” (Ravankhah and Schmidt, 2014) (Fig. 2). The risks have been analysed based onfour main criteria of probability of hazard/ disaster, severity of damage/ loss, level of uncertainty of
data, and loss in heritage values (based on ITC 2015). The last criterion, “the consequence in termsof loss of value”, has been stressed by Jigyasu et al. (2010, p. 29) as an additional specific criterion
which reflects impact on particular features of a World Heritage site conveying its Outstanding
Universal Values.

Fig. 2 The process of risk identification based on multi-hazard and vulnerability assessment

4. Disaster Risk Management
To ensure the effectiveness of the site’s DRM, it should be integrated into the overall urban planningand disaster risk management system of the city of Bam through a multi-stakeholder mechanism.
Fallahi (2008, p.22) states that “although the Bam earthquake was the immediate cause, thisdestruction instigated a process of urban renovation” in which “many elderly buildings and structures
were demolished in order to allow for the construction of stronger and sturdier structures”. Basedon the output of risk assessment, a disaster risk management (DRM) plan including risk mitigation,
preparedness, and recovery has been prepared for the property as follows:53

4.1 Mitigation strategies
MITIGATION STRATEGIESMain Actors

Long Term Strategies

Main Actors

Reviewing and updating existingdata- base of cultural properties
and natural/human-induced
hazards

Short Term Strategies

ICHHTO/KDMO
Municipality

Integrating DRM of the property
into the exiting urban planning/urban DRM to enhance multisector cooperation

ICHHTO/KDMO/Bam
municipality

Developing fire prevention
measures via installing fire
detective, fire hydrant, and early
warning system

Retrofitting of adobe structures
ICHHTO/ Fire using traditional and modern
ICHHTO
techniques, while considering thedepartment
OUV/ authenticity

Stabilising those parts of thecitadel and Qanat which seriously ICHHTO/
cracked and damaged by the
OPMBCLearthquake 2003

Regular maintenance of the citadel ICHHTO/Bamand Qanat to improve seismicrecovery
resilience and effectiveness of risk
officepreparedness

Identifying local, national, andinternational stakeholders
to support the DRM plan/
Fundraising activities among
private and public sectors

ICHHTO/KDMO

Determining specific retrofitting
methods & codes for earthen
constructions in order tostrengthen adobe structures

Promoting DRM of the property in
the Comprehensive Management
Plan of Bam and its CulturalLandscape (2008-2017)

ICHHTO/
Bam
municipality/
OPMBCL

Promoting coping capacities of
local staff/people and responsibleorganisations via seminars and
ICHHTO
workshops preferably inside theArg

ICHHTO/Bam
recovery
officeICHHTO: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, OPMBCL: Office for Planning and Management of Bam and its Cultural Landscape, KDMO: Kerman
Disaster Management Organization

4.2 Emergency response
PREPAREDNESS/ EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Strategies

Main Actors

Establishing a multi-sector emergency response team and chain of commands

ICHHTO

Preparing a directory of emergency-related contacts

ICHHTO/ KDMO

Preparing an emergency evacuation plan/layout in case of fire and earthquakes

ICHHTO/ KDMO

Installing early warning system (earthquake/ fire) and fire hydrant/ extinguisher,while considering the OUV of the property

ICHHTO/ Fire
department

Regular inspection of the lifelines and installations, as well as emergency
equipment

Municipality/
ICHHTO

Developing emergency drills and communicating the updated emergency planwith local staff & people through training workshops

KDMO/ ICHHTO/
Police/ Fire
department

Providing evacuation and salvage plan for movable cultural heritage, andidentifying safe storages to protect them from damage and theft

ICHHTO/ Police

Identifying water sources connected to Qanat and related streams for fire
prevention

ICHHTO/ Fire
department

Generating a risk map including cultural heritage value map, hazard boundaries, ICHHTO/ Bamand vulnerability map
municipality542.6 Disaster Risk Management for Bam and its Cultural Landscape in Iran

4.3 Recovery plan
RECOVERY PLAN
Short Term Strategies

Main Actors

Long Term Strategies

Main Actors

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officeEstablishing a multi-disciplinary
ICHHTO/
restoration/recovery teamincluding CH and DM agencies & OPMBCL
specialists

Archaeological excavation andinvestigation within the citadel
and its surrounding with a fulldocumentation

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officeDocumentation of the newsituation and preparing updated
data-base considering newly
emerged layers and objects/
updating the inventory and mapof cultural heritage

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officeDeveloping investigations andworkshops on strengthening
seismic-performance of adobe
structure using traditional andmodern techniques

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officeStabilising those parts of thecitadel and Qanat which seriously
cracked and damaged by theearthquake, liquefaction and fires

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officePromoting tourism industry
through encouraging private
sectors/ improving tourism
facilities in citadel

ICHHTO/
Municipality

Restoration of those buildings
which are used for rituals andceremonies to revival the sociocultural values of the property

ICHHTO/
Bam
recovery
officeIntegration of heritage into risk
KDMO/
preparedness training programme
ICHHTOand drills in the city

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Damage assessment of the citadel ICHHTO/(specifically the in-use buildings), Bam
Qanat system and surrounding
recoveryattributes
officeRetrofitting of the affected
adobe structures and Qanat,
using traditional and modern
techniques, while considering the
OUV & authenticity

References
1) Fallahi A : An Interdisciplinary Analytical Study on the Risk Preparedness of Bam and Its CulturalLandscape, a World Heritage Property in Danger in Iran, Australia, The Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 21-30, 2008.
2) ICHHTO, World Heritage Nomination for Bam and its Cultural Landscape, Iranian Cultural Heritage
Organization, 2004.
3) ITC 2015, 10th International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural
Heritage, organized by Ritsumeikan University as part of the UNESCO Chair Programme on
Cultural Heritage and Risk Management, 12th to 28th September, 2015, Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku
area, Japan.
4) Jigyasu R, et al.: Managing disaster risks for world heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Centre,
ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN, Paris, 2010.
5) Langenbach R: Performance of the Earthen Arg-e-Bam (Bam citadel) during the 2003 earthquake,
Earthquake Spectra, volume 21, no. S1, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 345–374,
2005.
6) Manafpour A: The Bam, Iran Earthquake of 26 December 2003, Field Investigation Report,
Halcrow Group Limited, EEFIT, 2003.
7) Mokhtari E, Nejati M and Vatandoust R: Consolidation and Reinforcement of Destabilized Earthen
Structures in Bam after the Earthquake of December 2003: Some New Approaches. International
Collaborations to Preserve Earthen Architectural Heritage. Terra 2008, pp. 312-316 2008.
8) Ravankhah M, Schmidt M: Developing Methodology of Disaster Risk Assessment for Cultural
Heritage Sites. Residential Doctoral School (RDS) at 4th International Conference on Building
Resilience, Salford Quays, UK, 8-10 September 2014. Conference proceeding. pp. 13-22
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=41475, 2014.

55

2.7 Integrated Disaster Management Plan: The Archeological Area ofAgrigento, Valley of the Temples, Italy
Aurelio DUGONIRegional Director of Sicily Committe of National Association of Public Assistance

1. Introduction“the value of planning is reduced in proportion to the complexity of the state of things”.
Emperor Octavian Augustus
The park, covering some 1300 hectares, retains an extraordinary architectural heritage andlandscape that includes the ruins of the ancient city of Akragas and the territory surrounding it to
the sea. In the Valley of the Temples, declared in 1997 by UNESCO "World Heritage", it is one of thelargest archaeological sites in the Mediterranean (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1 Valley Of the Temples - Source: Park Management Authority

Designed with an unique agricultural landscape the Valley is characterized with ancient olive trees
and almond trees. Akragas (the ancient name) was one of the most important Greek colonies inSicily, extended about 450 hectares, founded around 582 BC by settlers from the nearby Gelaand from Rhodes. During the years of democracy (471-406 BC) established by the philosopher
Empedocles of Akragas it was built the extraordinary series of Doric temples of the southern hill.
(Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Concordia Temple – Source: Park Management Authority56

2.7 Integrated Disaster Management Plan: The Archeological Areaof Agrigento, Valley of the Temples, Italy

During the Punic Wars Akragas was the basis of the Carthaginians against the Romans in 210 BC
They conquered it and changed the name to Agrigentum. Under Roman rule the city went throughanother period of prosperity also linked to trade sulfur (II-IV century AD.). In Christian times the Hill of
the Temples were built churches and cemeteries. When in 829 the city was conquered by the Arabs
living quarters were already perched on the hill of Girgenti, called by the name of the medieval city(from Gergent or Kerkent), which covers the present-day town of Agrigento

2. Attributes and Values
The UNESCO Committee decided to inscribe the Vally on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv),considering that Agrigento was one of the greatest cities of the ancient Mediterranean world, and it
has been preserved in an exceptionally intact condition. Its great row of Doric temples is one of themost outstanding monuments of Greek art and culture (Table 1).
Table 1ATTRIBUTESVALUESOne of the most big city in the
Mediterranean area during theEllenic Period

Archeological tangible area over Very Higha Plateu surronded by 2 rivers
ArcheologicalThe 10 Doric Temples and the 4
Shrines

Unique examples of Greek Art,
and Architectural structures
survived from the iV Century
B.C.

Very HighArchitectural

The Roman and Early Christian
Necropolis

Historical examples of thedifferent ages have beendeveloped in the Area

Very HighHistorical

Kolimbethra Garden

Water Management system tocollect water for agriculture

Very HighTechnologic
Agriculture
and Social

Landscape Design

Unique Landscape Planning
Community based

Very High
Identity

Regional Archeological Museum

Unique collection ofarcheological and historicalrelics from Greek and Roman
periodVery HighHistorical

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

WATH

Table - Source: Author

3. Hazards and Vulnerability
The Valley Of the Temples is vulnerable to a range of natural disaster and , unfortunally , humaninterferences (Fig. 3). There is no recorded evidence of damage due to seismic actitvity, even if
the Valley is not far from the Belice Valley where, in 1968, a major earthquake, destroyed cities withgreat losses. In 1865 a landslide hit the east part of the valley, fortunally without consequences forthe Doric temples. The 19 July 1966 a major Landslides of 45 Hectares strike the west of Agrigento,
Despite this, the main hazard is the heavy rain ad soil erosion with landslide possibility.

57

Fig. 3 (Source: Author)

4. Emergency Preparedness and Response
The Protection of Cultural Heritage is established by the Italian Constitution - Art. 9 – In 2004, with
the new Code of Protection of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, Italy have a Legal Framework as
basis for all the next Laws on this topic. The National Service for Civil Protection System establishedin 1992, in the Art. 1/bis declare to protect and to prevent disaster for human and all the goods
and properties included Heritage and Landscape. The Organized Volunteers are one of the mostimportant operational component of the Italian Civil Protection System – Art 11 – Law 225/1992. The
Sicily Region , among their Civil Protection Operative Functions have “ the Cultural Heritage” issue
among the permament component in the emergency situations. Despite this important statment the
problem is to integrate the “existent” differents plans, managing by several actors in the scenario.
Actually the status quo in the Valley Mangement to prevent and to respond to disasters or natual
hazard is represented in the Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 (Source: Author)58

2.7 Integrated Disaster Management Plan: The Archeological Areaof Agrigento, Valley of the Temples, Italy

5. The Integrated Plan (Fig. 5)
The goal is to integrate the existing plans in one INTEGRATED Emergency Plan, with the different
actors and stakeholders, involved for their main responsibility and duties. A solid cooperation
amongst actors is needed to avoid overlapping activities and to save money that could be allocate
to preparedness measures and prevention exercise. One of the main Actor for the implementationof the Integrated plan is the Municipality of Agrigento, that according to the Civil Protection law, isthe main authority in case of emergency. Another important issue is represented by the Organized
Volunteers and the communities that are actually involved in the management of the Valley:professional, experts, touristic guides, citizens. Communities engagement is the key to have a clear
prevention and day by day, prevention measures on the possible response to natural or man-madehazard ( i.e. wildfire). Periodical exercise and, or drills, permanent training and cooperation between
institutions are important assets that the INTEGRATED Plan should be take in account.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

GOALS- Integrated Emergency Plan
- Set Up of CLUSTER to Share Informations among Actors- Set up of CLUSTER of Volunteers trained to protect Cultural Heritage
OUTCOMES- Agreement with Valley Managing Authority- Agreement with Municipality- Agreement with Superintendency- Agreement with Fire Fighters Department
OUTPUTS- N° 1 Integrated Emergency Plan
- N° 20 Volunteers trained- N° 10 Meetings with Communities

Fig. 5 (Source: Author)

References
1) Sicily Region: Department of Cultural Heritage and Sicilian Identity
2) Unesco: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/3) Supereintendency of Agrigento 4) Agrigento Municipality: Emergency Plan - Section A – B – C5) Regional Department Of Civil Protection – PAI - and Hydrogeological Mitigation
6) National Department of Civil protection – Civil Protection National Service
7) INGV – Seismic Area and sismogenetic zones8) http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/statico/costituzione/pdf/costituzione.pdf9) http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/1240240310779_codice2008.pdf

59

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Robben Island World Heritage Site,
South Africa
Pamela MAC QUIKAN
African World Heritage Fund

1. Introduction (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4)
Robben Island is one of South Africa’s most significant and iconic heritage sites which symbolizes
for South Africans, Africans, and people from all over the world the “triumph of the human spirit overenormous hardship and adversity”. The 2-kilometre-long island located 11 km off the coast of Cape
Town (Table Bay), became a National Monument in 1996 and a UNESCO World Heritage Property in1999 under the category of cultural landscapes. Robben Island is a multi-layered landscape that wasused at various times between the 17th century and the 20th century as a prison, a hospital for socially
unacceptable groups, a banishment place for indigenous communities, and a military base. It also
has fauna and flora aspects. Its buildings, and in particular those of the late 20th century maximum
security prison for political prisoners, testify to the way in which democracy and freedom triumphedover oppression and racism.

Fig. 1 Aerial view of Robben Island ©Robben Island Museum

Fig. 2 Entrance Arch to Robben Island ©Robben Island Museum

Fig. 4 Main prison buildings ©UNESCO

Fig. 3 View of main prison buildings of Robben Island ©Robben Island Museum602.8 Disaster Risk Management of Robben Island World Heritage Site, South Africa

2. Attributes and Values
Robben Island has over 700 individual buildings and structures such as the stark and functional
maximum security prison of the Apartheid era, Kramat and the tomb of Hadije Kramat who died in
1755, the 19th century ‘village’, two chapels/churches and parsonage, a small lighthouse, cemeteries(Irish and Lepers), World War II military equipment and structures, shipwrecks, and three quarries. The
Jetty 1 facilities and the Mayibuye Archives based on the mainland form part of the attributes of Robben
Island. The Island is part of the Cape Floral Kingdom and has additional ecological importance as aseal colony and as a breeding site for many bird species. The importance of Robben Island is also
drawn from its intangible heritage which lies strongly in memory encompassing the living and recorded
memories, mental constructs, values, impressions and thoughts of all people who lived or spent timeon the Island, dating back to the beginnings of recorded history. Robben Island has multiple and multilayered values ranging from archaeological, historical, natural, educational, touristic, and economic topolitical, symbolic, spiritual, aesthetic, social, and memorial.
Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

3. Protection and Management
Robben Island is legally protected as a National Heritage Site through a range of cultural and naturallegislation including the National Heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999); the World Heritage
Convention Act (Act No 49 of 1999); the various National Environmental Management Acts and theWorld Heritage Convention. Robben Island falls within the municipal boundaries of the City of Cape
Town. The delegated management authority is the Robben Island Museum Council which has an
operational management plan running from 2013-2018. The Island receives around 350,000 visitors
per year which is controlled through a ferry system. The village on the island houses about 200 people,
mainly staff members, service providers and agents of state departments with infrastructure on theisland.
South Africa has a relatively young history of disaster management protection which includes theState of Emergency Act of 1997, the National Veld and Forest Fire Act of 1998, and finally the Disaster
Management Act of 2002. The latter Act created an integrated and coordinated disaster management
policy which is run nationally by the National Disaster Management Centre. The Act includes the
Ministry of Environmental Affairs as a stakeholder, however, the Ministry of Arts and Culture is notincluded. This, and the lack of disaster risk management highlighted in cultural heritage legislation,
has resulted in cultural properties not having adequate protection against the threat of disasters. As
such, Robben Island World Heritage Site does not yet have a disaster risk management plan, yet it’sincreasingly becoming an important aspect of World Heritage site management.

4. Disaster Risk: Hazards and Vulnerabilities (Fig. 5)
The National Disaster Management Centre has indicated that the most predominant threats in South
Africa are flood, fire, storms, drought, hail, rain and wind. According to the 1990-2014 International
Disaster Database (EM-DAT): the highest frequency of disasters in South Africa is attributed to floods
and storms, followed by wildfire. Flood causes the highest mortality, with drought having the biggest
impact on the economy. In the Western Cape area of South Africa, where Robben Island is located,
there is a predominance of flood, fire, storms, rain, wind and heavy swells.
The topography of the Robben Island is extremely low-lying with the highest point measuring 24
metres above sea-level. Analyses of 50 years of data measured in Southern Africa, indicate that on
the western coast of South Africa the sea level is rising by about 1.87 mm/year. This rise in sea-levelcombined with the increase in frequency and intensity of sea storms is contributing to a higher risk ofdamage by storm surges, greater tidal influence, increased flooding and coastal erosion, and more
frequent destruction of property and infrastructure. Climatic conditions on Robben Island are more
extreme than the mainland with stronger winds, and colder and drier winters. The area of Robben
Island also has a high level of fire risk due to the vegetation type. Another threat is the power station61

located on the shores of Cape Town directly opposite the island, of which any disasters related to it
will affect the island.

Fig. 5 Vulnerabilities of Robben Island with the related hazards and impacts

5. Mitigation Measures (Table 1)
There are a number of prevention and mitigation measures that can be put in place at the National andSite level to address the vulnerabilities of the property.

6. Emergency Preparedness and Response
An emergency multidisciplinary response team should be established and headed by the Management
Authority (Robben Island Museum). The Authority should connect with both internal and external
stakeholders within the multidisciplinary disaster risk management team. Numerous issues need tobe considered including: radio communication, updated emergency signage, a second in command,
emergency evacuation brochures, emergency contacts directory, backup power generators, registerof people on island at all time, emergency supplies +-3 days, and emergency drills/training. The
current emergency evacuation plan needs to be updated taking into account all the hazards andvulnerabilities of the site.

62

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Robben Island World Heritage Site, South Africa

Table 1 National and site level mitigation measures for the vulnerabilities of Robben Island

NATIONAL LEVEL – medium to long term
Vulnerabilities

Prevention and mitigation

Stakeholders

Inclusion of Arts and Culture as a
stakeholder in the National Disaster
Management Framework

Lack of data on disasters/
damage to site

Promotion of research on disaster risk
management of cultural heritage in RSA

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Disaster Management Preparedness• Department of Arts
and Culture• National Disaster
Management
Disaster risk not a concern Emphasis of disaster risk in policies
Centreconcerning the protection of culturalfor cultural heritage• South African
heritagestructures
Heritage Resources
AgencyDisaster management plans as a
• UNESCO, ICCROM,
requirement for national heritage
ICOMOS
properties and World Heritage Properties• African World
Production of national guidelines for DRM
Little knowledge andHeritage Fundof CH (for DRM plans and identification of • South African
understanding of DRM ofcultural heritage by heritage hazards)
Universities
professionals• Robben Island
Capacity building workshops on theMuseumidentification and management of disasterrisks
Cultural heritage nota concern for disastermanagement structures

Creation of database on disasters
affecting CH in RSA (past, present andpotential)
SITE LEVEL – medium to short term
Vulnerabilities

Prevention and mitigation

Island Conditions

Monitoring system on sea level rise for-Climate change (seaRIMlevel rise, temp. increase,increase in storms)
More effective early warning weather-Strong wind and storm areasystem-Vegetation prone to fire
(invasive species)
Removal of invasive species

Management&planning-Lack of adequate/trained
staff-Lack of maintenance/
conservation-Lack of maintenanceto seawalls, ferries, dryvegetation, fire breaks-Lack of clear planning/data

DM preparedness-Outdated emergency
evacuation plan, not utilized
or known by staff-Minimal fire preventativeequipment-Cultural heritage notincluded in disastermanagement structures

More sustainable use (solar power etc.)
Capacity building for staff/residents on
DRM
Regular maintenance/ conservation to all
structures, coast and land
Documentation (incl. on state ofconservation , previous restoration,
digitization of intangible)
Creation of a DRM plan and risk map
Update emergency evacuation plan

Stakeholders
Multi-disciplinary
DRM team• Robben Island
Museum• Cape Town DMC• City of Cape Town
• CT coast guard• CT Fire services• SAHRA & HWC• DAC/DEA• SA weather
services• Dept. of public
works• Robben Island
Residents• SA Navy• EskomMore effective/extensive fire preventativeequipment throughout area & alarmsystemMore guards monitoring areas of island
RIM included in Cape Town DMC team63

7. Recovery Activities (Fig. 6)

Fig. 6 Recovery plan in disaster scenarios.

8. Conclusions
Robben Island Museum Council, in collaboration with the African World Heritage Fund, have plans
underway to create an Integrated Disaster Risk Plan (IDRP) for the site. Extensive stakeholder
consultations and the gathering of conclusive research is needed to inform the formulation of this plan
to ensure it is a practical, comprehensive and implementable plan that covers all the values of theproperty.

References
1) South Africa, Republic of. : Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act No. 57 of 2002). Pretoria:
Government Printer. Government Gazette No. 24252. 2003.
2) South Africa, Republic of. : National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999). Pretoria:
Government Printer. Government Gazette No. 11974. 1999.
3) NDMC, 2005. SA National Disaster Management Framework, 2005. Unpublished internal report.
Retrieved on 15 July 2014 from World Wide Web: http://www.ndmc.gov.za/Documents/Framework.
aspx.
4) RIM (Robben Island Museum). : The Robben Island Museum 2nd Integrated Conservation
Management Plan 2013-2018: Operational Management Plan. South Africa: Robben Island
Museum. 2013.
5) CRED EM-DAT (Feb. 2015): The OFDA/CRED - International Disaster Database www.emdat.be
Université catholique de Louvain Brussels - Belgium. 2015.
6) http://www.preventionweb.net/english/countries/africa/zaf/
7) Goschen, W.: Coping with sea level rise and storm surges. National research Foundation: South
African Environmental Observation Network. http://www.saeon.ac.za/enewsletter/archives/2011/
april2011/doc08.
8) National Disaster Management Centre: http://www.ndmc.gov.za/

64

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ashanti Traditional Building- Ejisu Besease Shrine
Benjamin Kofi AFAGBEGEE
Architect/Assistant Conservator of Monuments, Ghana Museums & Monuments Board

1. Introduction
Ten Ashanti Traditional Buildings survive and speak to the vernacular architecture produced during theheight of the Asante Kingdom. These buildings are located in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, around
Kumasi and Obuasi. As the popularity of Christianity, Islam, and other religions grew, the practice ofAnimism at these shrines decreased and many fell into disuse. The 10 Ashanti Traditional Buildings
were inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage List in 1980 as “Rare surviving examples of a significant
traditional architectural style of the influential, powerful and wealthy Asante kingdom”.
These buildings served mainly as palaces,shrines ,houses for the powerful deities who protected the
kingdom,homes for the affluent and as mausoleums and are mainly wattle and daub construction withthatch roof.There are 10 Traditional Buildings remaining, 9 are within 35km radius of kumasi.
Asante Traditional Buildings have strong symbolic, social, religious, and historical values. Each
Traditional Building represents the memory of the village and links the community to the strong Asantetraditions. Some of the Traditional Buildings also have economic value for the communities throughtourism. This financial impact is not evenly spread on all Ashanti Traditional Buildings. Some remote
Traditional Buildings do not receive tourists.
These group of buildings represent a unique artistic and aesthetic achievement. The decorative motifs
executed on the walls show adaptations of traditional "Adinkra" symbols which are not only unique
but are very rare in the world. (Justification for inclusion in the World Heritage List as Cultural Property.
25th May 1978)
The need to conserve the remaining examples of Asante traditional architecture was recognised in
the 1950s. In 1972 they were declared national monuments. The Ashanti Traditional Buildings were
included on the 2012 World Monuments Watch. This provided an opportunity to raise awareness on theimportance of safeguarding this fragile and important heritage, raise funds, give the local communities
a sense of ownership, and also reunite the stakeholders living around the heritage sites (Fig. 1, 2).

Fig. 1 Ejisu Besease Traditional Building:UNESCO World Heritage Site65

Fig. 2 Regionalization and Location of Ashanti Traditional Buildings(Ejisu Besease Traditional Building location arrowed)

2. Site Description and Definition- Ejisu Besease Traditional BuildingThis article focuses on DRM Plan for Ejisu Besease Traditional Building, located adjacent to paved roadcrossing Besease in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. It is surrounded by new residential and commercial
development that directly impacts the site. It is widely visited by Ghanaian and international tourists
because it has been marketed as a tourist attraction and has undergone the most extensive restorationand interpretive work by CRAterre and GMMB (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Courtyard and Intricate Bas -relief wall decorations .Ejisu Besease Traditional Building66

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ashanti Traditional Building - Ejisu Besease Shrine

3. Site Attributes and Values
Table 1 Site Attributes and Values

Attributes ofEjisu Besease
Traditional
Building/Shrine

Type of attribute

AssociatedvaluesScores for
Value
Stakeholders for these values
1(Low)
2(Medium)3(High)Cultural
Educational
Spiritual
Symbolic
historic

3

UNESCO
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council

Intricate Panel
Door Designs

Immovable
Tangible
CulturalCultural
Educational
Use value
Spiritual
Symbolic
historic

3

UNESCO
Schools ,Colleges, Universities
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council

Steep pitched
thatch roof withbamboo rafters

Immovable
Tangible
CulturalCultural
Educational
Use value
Symbolic
historic

3

UNESCO
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council

Ceremonial Stools, Movable
Tangible
Brass basins,
CulturalDrums

CulturalUse value
Spiritual
Symbolic
Historic

2

UNESCO
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council

Ritual Dances

MovableTangible
CulturalCultural
Educational
Spiritual
Symbolic

2

UNESCO
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council
Africans in the diasporas

Sky Altars

Immovable
Tangible
CulturalCultural
Educational
Spiritual
Symbolic
Historic

3

UNESCO
Ghana Museums & Monuments
Board
Ashanti Traditional Council

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Intricate Bas Relief Immovable
MuralsTangible
Cultural

4. Vision of DRM Plan for Ejisu Besease Traditional Building: Statement of Goal
Mitigation of risks to the site resulting from the potential negative impacts of the heavy annual rainfall
in the region, termite attack and the risk of fire outbreak in the building and protection of objects
which are directly linked to the Outstanding Universal Value of the site. The DRM Plan seeks to raiseawareness of the importance of the protection of cultural heritage sites in Ghana.

67

5.Risks and Vulnerabilities Assessment
Table 2 Risks and Vulnerabilities by heavy rainfall and windstorms

Heavy Annual Rainfall/Windstorms
Vulnerabilities
Nature of materials

Impact on Site

Bamboo rafters

Infiltration of rainwater
Ripping away of thatch roof Detaching and removal of portions ofthatch roof
Fungal attack and disintegration of bamboo rafters

Bas relief clay murals

Eroding and weathering of bas relief clay murals

Tree bark ridge

Fungal attack and disintegration of tree bark ridge

Thatch roof

Table 3 Risks and Vulnerabilities by termite attack and infestation.

Termite attack and Infestation
Vulnerabilities

Impact on Site

Panel doors

Deterioration and disintegration of door

Wooden Propping of lintels

Deterioration and collapse of wooden lintels

Bamboo Rafters

Deterioration and yielding of bamboo rafters

Jalousie windows

Deterioration and disintegration of windows by termite attack

Wooden Sky altars

Deterioration and disintegration of wooden base of sky altars
Deterioration and yielding of structural timber framework supportingroof

Structural timber framework
Table 4 Risks and Vulnerabilities by fire.

Fire
Vulnerabilities
Lack of management and fire
safety policy
Panel doors

Impact on Site
Destruction and annihilation of heritage

Wooden Propping on lintels

Destruction and/or collapse of wooden propping on lintels

Bamboo Rafters

Destruction and/or yielding of rafters

Wooden sky altars

Destruction and/or collapse of wooden sky altars

Structural timber framework

Destruction and/or collapse of structural timber framework

Destruction and/or collapse of doors

6. Risk Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures are to address the main threats to the site which are heavy rain falls, fire andtermite attack.
Strategic Level Measure s (Long Term)
1) Regular monitoring and enforcement of legal provisions for demolitions and removal ofunauthorized structures encroaching the site.
2) National Building Code has provision for fire safety but no provision for cultural heritage. It is
recommended provision is made for inclusion of cultural heritage in the code .
3) Making provision for cultural heritage in the National Disaster Management framework .
Planning Level Measures (Mid to Long Term)
1) Making a Site Management Plan for the site2) Undertaking Risk Assessment for the site68

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Ashanti Traditional Building - Ejisu Besease Shrine3) Undertaking a cultural attribute and value assessment for the site by recording, mapping anddigitizing all aspects of the cultural heritage.
4) Local area building byelaws have provision for fire safety but no separate provision for cultural
heritage .It is recommended that building bye laws include cultural heritage needs.
5) Establishing standard operating protocol for Disaster Risk Management of cultural assets.
Technical Level Measures (Mid to Short-term)
1) Undertake periodic maintenance of the bas relief murals and building fabric.
2) Improving security of the site.
3) Carrying out regular maintenance especially during the rainy season.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 ParticipantsCommunity Level Measures (Mid to Short-term)
1) Building awareness among the local community and tourists about the cultural value of the site
and the effects of disaster risks on the site.
2) Encouraging the community to take up voluntary watch in the area.

7. Emergency Preparedness and Response
The emergency preparedness responses is primarily meant to address the pertinent threats tothe site which are weathering and erosion of the intricate bas relief murals due to heavy rainfall,termite infestation and fire which is the most probable catastrophic threat captured in a recent hazard
mapping of the site and immediate community. There is an existing fire station a few kilometers awayfrom the site. The proposed emergency preparedness and response relies largely on self help by
way of an immediate response by the local community. This entails the creation of an onsite stakeholders emergency response team with roles clearly assigned to persons to network with the fireservice department in the municipality.
Some proposed measures are as follows
1) Training response team members especially site tour guides to guide the public and visitors
safely.
2) Installing firefighting equipment including battery operated smoke detectors and alarm, fire
extinguishers, water hose and pump system.
3) Creating obstacle free routes to evacuation areas.
4) Designating a parking area for fire engine on the site parking lot.
5) Evacuation of collections and objects such as brass pans, stools, drums and historic photographs
on exhibition panels to the public library adjacent the site in the event of fire.

8. Recovery Plan
The proposed recovery plan for the site involves all stake holders .They range from Traditional authorities
and Governmental Agencies to individual users. The descriptions below explain the responsibilitiesof the stakeholders and is to be carried out in three phases namely short, medium and long term as
detailed in the table.

69

Table 5 Recovery Planning

Agencies/Stakeholders

Short Term

Medium TermLong Term >5 Years

1.Ghana Museums &Monuments Board
2.Conservators,
3.Curators,
4.Building Inspectors
5.Site Manager
6.Tour Guides

1.Review of DRM Plan
1.Re inventory of
1.Evacuation ofCultural and Heritage 2.Regular monitoring
Artifactsof siteValues
2.Cultural heritage site
3.Restore Site to
2.Repair works andmanagement
original context
replacement
3.Clearing of site
3.Capacity building
debrisResearch awareness4.Community
seminars
mobilization

1.Municipal Authority
2.Fire Department
3.LocalCommunity
4.Volunteer Groups

1.Securing Public
infrastructure
2.Restoring public
services
3.Removing debris

1.Upgrading andmaintaining services
like water supply
and installation of fire
safety measures

1.Conducting regularfire drills

9. Pilot Project and Conclusion
The pilot project is to make and Implement a comprehensive Management Plan for the site and also a
Disaster Risk Management Plan which will be integrated into the Management Plan.
The actors are the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board.
Time frame: Two years
Resources will be sought from Organisations in Ghana and abroad who finance activities for theConservation and protection of Heritage Sites.

References
1) Sebastien Moriset ;Asante Traditional Buildings: Survey And Condition Assessment , pp.88-96,
January 2014.
2) Jigyasu ,Rohit and Arora Vanicka:Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas,
A Training Guide,Kyoto,Research Centre for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University, 2013.
3) WHC Nomination Dossier; Ashanti Traditional Buildings, PP.3.June 1978.

70

2.10 Preparing Disaster Risk Management Plan for Boudhanath
Stupa, Nepal
Sonam LAMA
Nepal Engineering College, Department of Architcture

1. Background & Introduction (Fig. 1, 2)
Nepal lies between China to its north and India to the South, West and East. The capital city of Nepal
Kathmandu Valley is home to seven UNESCO world heritage sites namely Kathmandu Durbar Square,
Patan Durbar Square, Bhaktapur Durbar Square, Changunarayan, Pashupatinath, Swayambhunathand Boudhanath.
Boudhanth Stupa is one of the living heritages of Kathmandu Valley. According to historical accounts,
the Stupa is built around 5th century. As Nepal plays an important role to connect its southern plains andIndia and northern Himalayan region and Tibet, it was and still is an important trade-transist. However
due to mountaneous geography, traders and pilgrimas has to set trek as means of transportation.
Believers of Buddhism have a strong tradition to set such an arduous journey with great devotion to
make it success. Hence, traders, pilgrims and travellers sought a blessing for the safe passage overthe high mountains and thanksgiving to it upon their arrival. Stupas are built to accumulate goodkarma, to ward-off evil spirits and to remove the sin.
The legend has it that King Vikramajit’s son, prince Manadeva built the stupa to atone the sin. The King
Vikramjit had been going through difficult time to feed the population due to severe drought. He wassuggested by an astrologer to sacrifice an ideal man with 32 virtues in front of dry royal waterspout. He
asked his son to accompany in the middle of night and commanded to behead the person shroudedin white robe without looking at him. The prince obeyed his father but of course with great horror only
to find it was none other than his own father.

Fig. 1 Aerial view of the Stupa by Frank Schönau 2015

Fig. 2 Boudhanath core and buffer area71

2. The Heritage Attributes
Boudhanath Stupa attracts not only tourists from around the world but more importantly and still
remains centre for Buddhist learning, practice and an integral part of local people.
Unique coexistence with Buddhism and Hinduism with animist rituals and Tantrism
Besides the stupa’s symbolic significance of Buddha body, it provides a common space to several
sects of Buddhist practitioners such as Ngyingmapa, Sakyapa, Gelugkpa, Kgyupa, Bonpo as well as
Hindu and animist believers.

2.1 Exceptional Architectural style
Boudhanath Stupa is probably the biggest stupa in the Asia. Apart from its grandness, the architectural
style consists of mandala plan with dome representing the universe laid over the mandala. Mandalais the Buddhist representation of cosmology followed by cube with eyes on its four sides. The thirteen
steps made of bricks covered with copper plate represent paths to the enlightenment. The Chhatravali
is an umbrella shaped protective layer. The top is a pinnacle made of copper.

2.2 Interface of great culture from the north and south of the Himalayas
The stupa is an important pilgrimage site as well as transit trading station from Tibet and India
Craftsman working with copper inhabits the Stupa and its surroundings.

2.3 A place of living traditions while taking into account inevitable changes
Festivals such as Lhosar, Timal and various rituals have been taking place in and around Boudhanath
Stupa since centuries.

3. Disaster Risk Management Plan of Boudhanath Stupa (Fig. 3)
Geographically, Nepal lies in seismically active zone. Historically, Nepal and surrounding region has
records of major earthquakes in interval of 80-100 years. After 1934 AD earthquake, recent earthquakeof magnitude 7.8 and 7.3 killed more than 9000 people and destroyed thousands of houses, publicbuildings, trails, bridges and other man-made structures.
The earthquake affected Boudhanath Stupa (see in the middle picture below). Parts of the thirteen
steps and the dome got cracked. According to the Department of Archaeology, soksing “the main
central strut” was found tilted. Greater re-building has been undergoing with different line ministries
and agencies. However, the disaster risk management plan of the site still remains unknown.
Hence, the author takes this opportunity to use available information and his knowledge towards
preparing Disaster Risk Management Plan of Boudhanath Stupa (DRMP-BS). The main objective of
this document is to help guide organizations on formulating actual disaster management plans.

Fig. 3 Boudhanath Stupa before 2015 earthquake and re-building under progress

4. Risk Scenarios
An earthquake of magnitude 8.0 hits with its epicenter in Kathmandu of Nepal on Timal Jatra at
5pm. Crowd, congregation & chaos, surrounding walls starts to collapse, fire broke out from nearby
restaurant, monasteries, shortage and lack of access to water sources, blockage of narrow pathways,
the top of the main stupa starts falling apart, stampede, looting of religious artifacts from Ajima temple,

72

2.10 Preparing Disaster Risk Management Plan for Boudhanath Stupa, Nepal

rescue, evacuation is interrupted by crowd tourists were trapped in restaurants and stuck in roof tops,
elderly and children got trapped.
As a result, there is a huge loss of lives, loss of local property, loss of authenticity of the stupa andpsychological impacts among devotees.

5. Disaster Mitigation Measures

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Disaster Mitigation Measures are most difficult to prescribe however organization of possible measureand events can better organize with respect to time.
Drilling on earthquake risk and training on management of risks from earthquake can be short-term(6-12 months) while establishing early warning system, management of haphazard electric cable,
incense burning and butter lamps may be included in both short-term as well as mid-term (1-2 years).
Surrounding roads and narrow pathways are important conduit not only during the daily activities but
more importantlty in post-disaster time. Hence, management with regards to maintainance of alreadyconnecting pathways needs to be well identified in order to be functional during disaster times. In
regards to rapid and haphazard urbanization of Boudhanath Stupa and its vicinity, management ofland-use would need many years of and continuous effort from the authorities such as Kathmandu
Valley Preservation Authority, Kathmandu Metropolitan City. Coordination among concerned agencies
such as Department of Archaeology, Boudhanath Area Development Committee, ward offices andBoudha Gyang Guthi would also need long-term mitigation plans.

6. Response and Recovery
Response and recovery after the disaster such as an earthquake would not be a straightforward andas simple as predictions based on present circumstances. However, basic considerations such as
who should be doing what and when would help on at least on minimizing the post-disaster chaos that
often becomes another disaster.
National level offices such as Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation and Ministry of Home
would be main point of contact to understand the overall co-ordination strategy. Initial level of planningand coordination shall not always be straightforward too. Boudhanath Area Development Committee(BAD-C) or Boudha Gyang Guthi (BGG) or combination of both may be trained to develop basic
coordiantion skills. Experts from Department of Archaeology (DoA) together with assistance fromInternational agencies such as UNESCO experts shall carry out quick documentation activities. DoA,
can launch major fund-raising campaign however, these days, funds are also raised with the help ofPrime Minister Relief Trust. Individual and private fund raising campaign needs to be co-ordinated withlocal agencies such as BAD-C and BGG.
Similarly, training and awareness on local level management of post-disaster sites can be complex
nexus between several concerned agencies. Rescue, first-aid and triage are the activities followed bytraining. Ministry, UNESCO may provide necessary funds in general while local level agencies shallplay role in identifying the resources such as tools, materials and manpower to execute recovery anddevelopmnet.
Following the principle of disaster risk management, the process my give a sense of start and end
however runs in a cyclic hence phases of recovery and development again lays another beginning toprepare for next disaster.

References
1) Bipad Byavasthapan tatha Nagarik Surakshya Nirdesika 2070 (Disaster Management and Civil
Protection Directives 2013), Kathmandu Metropolitan City
2) Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site, Integrated Management Framework, Department ofArchaeology in close collaboration with the World Heritage Centre and UNESCO-Kathmandu
Office, 1 June 2007.
3) National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal, National Society for Earthquake
Technology (N-SET), March 2008.
4) Keith Dowman, The Great Stupa of Boudhanath, Robin Books, 2002 (revised third edition).
73

2.11 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in thePhilippines: The Case of Sto. Niño Shrine & Heritage Museum,and People’s Center & Library
Gerald Vallo PARAGAS
Urban and Environmental Planner, City Government of Tacloban, Philippines

1. Introduction (Fig. 1, 2)
The scale and magnitude of the impact of Typhoon Haiyan (local name: Yolanda), which hit central
Philippines on 8 November 2013, created overwhelming needs in Tacloban City. Some experts
estimate the storm as strongest ever to make landfall.
Given the enormous coordination and operational challenges in the City, one would observe that
cultural heritage sector is missing in post-disaster efforts, from emergency response to recovery.
Case in point is the Sto. Niño Shrine & Heritage Museum, and People’s Center & Library in Tacloban,
which was partly damaged by Haiyan and the resultant storm surges. This set of buildings even madeheadlines as the site, particularly the People’s Center and Library, served as spontaneous evacuation
center for more than 100 families, and that books were reportedly used by evacuees for kindling andtoilet paper during the first few days after the mega-disaster hit.

Fig. 1 The Sto. Niño Shrine and Heritage Museum, which serves as a chapel, museum and guesthouse, is one of the frequently visited tourist spots inthe city as it displays priceless art pieces and antique collections (Photos credits: lakwatserongtsinelas.com)

Fig. 2 Beside the Shrine is the People’s Center and Library which originally housed almost 50,000 books, periodicals, educational tapes and magazines

1.1 Description and Historical Background of the Buildings
The Sto. Niño Shrine and Heritage Museum is a two-storey building with a floor area of more than
2,000-sq.m. located at Real Street, Tacloban City. Then First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos built thereligious landmark in 1979 to pay homage to the Holy Child (Baby Jesus). The Shrine is widely famous
for its display of priceless and politically controversial art pieces, antiques, collection of religious
Russian icons, ivory figurines, and huge paintings of the Romualdez clan and Marcos family.
Just beside the Shrine is the People’s Center and Library (PCL), the biggest library in Region VIII.
The PCL, also a project of the former First Lady, is a neoclassical structure of a multi-purpose center,74

2.11 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines:
The Case of Sto. Niño Shrine & Heritage Museum, and People’s Center & Library

gymnasium, conference hall and library in a two-storey building.
The Shrine and the PCL were both sequestered by Presidential Commission on Good Government(PCGG) and are the subjects of litigation in a civil case with the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan forrecovery as ill-gotten wealth. The buildings are under the administration and control of the PCGG since1986 while resolution of the case involving its rightful ownership is still pending.

2. Vulnerability and Disaster Risk Assessment
2.1 City’s Geographic Realities

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

The location and physiographic characteristics of Tacloban City (population: 221,174) make itvulnerable to different forms of natural disasters. The city is situated in the mid-section of the country’s
Pacific side, a location that is susceptible to the direct and indirect effects of the roughly 20 typhoons
that hit the country each year. It also lies in the portion of Leyte Gulf that tends to invite the strongest
storm surges due to its funnel effect.
The city lies only 145 kilometers west of the Philippine Trench, a subduction zone capable of producing
strong earthquakes that can affect Tacloban through liquefaction and intense ground shaking in the
coasts that could reach up to Intensity VIII (destructive) based on the Philippine Earthquake Intensity
Scale. It is also capable of producing tsunamis of the same scale as the storm surge from Supertyphoon Haiyan, further increasing the city’s risks from disasters.

2.2 Threats and Impacts to Heritage Buildings
Aside from typhoon/storm surge as a primary hazard, also posing danger to heritage values are fireand human interventions and negligence, including lack of maintenance and poor management.
Threats, vulnerabilities and their impacts are further illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Hazards and their Impacts (Inset: Photos of the Shrine and PCL in the aftermath of 2013 Super typhoon Haiyan) Photos
credits: globalnation.inquirer.net, AFP Getty Images)75

3. Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Planning
The DRM planning aims to integrate disaster risk reduction in the cultural heritage management of thebuildings, and to demonstrate a good practice of mainstreaming the cultural aspect in the ongoingrecovery and rehabilitation planning of the city post-Haiyan. Behind the DRM planning process ofCultural Heritage is a core team composed of the following: (1) PCGG, (2) Leyte-Samar Heritage
Society/LSHS, (3) City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office/CDRRMO, (4) United
Architects of the Philippines/UAP-Eastern Visayas Chapter, (5) Department of Interior and Local
Government/DILG-Region 8, (6) Barangay No. 50 or the village that covers the site, and representativefrom Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Palo (Leyte Province).
The core team of Cultural Heritage sector, an addendum to the cluster approach system of coordination
for City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, will also advise through CDRRMO the City
Mayor and concerned national agencies on matters relating to Culture and Heritage management in
the City consistent with the policies and scope of DRM law (Fig. 4). The team will also develop andensure implementation of DRR standards and procedures in carrying out cultural heritage programs,
including disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery works (Philippines’
four thematic areas of DRM).

Fig. 4 Proposed City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (CDRRMC) Operation Flow of
Coordination – before, during and after Emergency

3.1 Proposed Prevention and Mitigation Measures
Although some of the measures are already proposed and partly implemented by Tacloban Recovery
and Sustainable Development Group (TRSDG) based on its Haiyan roadmap Tacloban Recovery andRehabilitation Plan (TRRP), key operational and institutional activities are worth highlighting.
・Construction of wind protector for windows and doors
・Installation of fire protection system (fire alarms, sprinklers, extinguishers, fire exits)
・Removal of encroaching obstructions (e.g. ambulant vendors)
・Establishment of rainwater harvesting and storage tanks, fitted with filtration equipment
・Construction of a drainage system, and flood control measures along major rivers
・Capacity-building activities (emergency planning, trainings and drills) with site management staff,
members of CDRRMC and barangay (village) leaders・Special seat/representation of LSHS (on behalf of culture sector) in the CDRRMC

76

2.11 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines:
The Case of Sto. Niño Shrine & Heritage Museum, and People’s Center & Library・Private-public partnership agreement with Tourism Department, Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) foundations, and University of the Philippines-Tacloban campus
・Digitalization of records and off-site documentation
・Review and localization of building code (protecting vista points and sight lines of cultural site)

3.2 Preparedness and Emergency Response (Fig. 5, Table 1)
It is likewise crucial for the Cultural Heritage team to ink deal with the local government units andmanagement of prospected evacuation centers to ensure exclusion of the heritage buildings in the listof storm shelters for internally displaced persons, thereby avoiding confusion in times of emergency.

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

Fig. 5 The Composition and Functions of Emergency Team, and the Proposed Evacuation Site for Heritage Fragments and Collections
Table 1 Recovery and Rehabilitation

Activities/Procedures

Priority
Level

Implementer

Funding Source

Create a team to formulate
recovery plan

Immediate PCGG and multi-sectoral partners Government (policy(LSHS, UP Tacloban, Archdiocese, level)
UNESCO, professional groups

Review of structures needing
immediate restoration andreplacement works

Immediate PCGG, LSHS, professionalgroups, UNESCO

Government(TIEZA)

Short term
Acquisition of container vans
(temporary storage of delicate/sensitive materials

PCGG

TIEZA, UNESCO,
private company/
donorsHold donor’s forum to present Short term
the proposed recovery projects

PCGG and LSHS

Government: TIEZA
and PCGG

Creation of Cultural Heritage
Council

Short term

Local government and multisectoral partners

Government (policy
level)

Enactment of ordinance on
heritage tax incentives

MediumTerm

Local government

Government (policy
level)

Promotion of heritage tourism

Long term

Department of Tourism, local
governments

Government,
private sector*Immediate term (0-4 months), Short term (1 year), Medium term (3 years), Long term (5 years up)

References
1) Tacloban City Government & UN-Habitat: Tacloban Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan (Draft Report,
May 2014)
2) Tacloban City Planning & Development Office: Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Tacloban City,
2013-2022

772.12 Disaster Risk Analyses and prevention in ŽIČA monastery,
SerbiaMarko ALEKSIĆ
Central Institute for Conservation

1. Introduction (Fig. 1, 2)Žiča is an early 13th-century Serb Orthodox monastery near Kraljevo, in South-West Serbia. The
monastery, together with the Church of the Holy Salvation, was built by the first King of Serbia, Stefan
the First-Crowned and the first Head of the Serbian Church, Saint Sava. Žiča was the seat of theArchbishop (1219–1253), and by tradition a coronation church of the medieval Serbian kings.
The monastery complex was several times, in its history, burned and demolished, and reconstructedagain. Today’s appearance and composition is a state from first broad conservation work from early
XX century. The complex consists of religious buildings (Church of Holy Salvation, Church of St.
Theodors, Church of St. Sava, etc), administrative buildings, living quarters for monastic community,and economic buildings. It has been recognised as national heritage of great importance (highest
level of protection).

Fig. 1 Monastery Žiča, aerial view (photo archive of Monastery Žiča)Fig. 2 Monastery Žiča site plan (Central Institute for Conservation in
Belgrade)

2. Hazards and Vulnerabilities
Serbia is landlocked Balkan country, whose geography varies from flatlands in the north to mountainarea in south and has a very rich river network. In the past, this region was affected several times
by earthquakes, floods, landslides and forest fires. Hazard analysis was undertaken for this site withthe aim to mark and evaluate levels of the possible risks. History of disasters was gathered from therecords and accordingly, a list of hazards was identified – humidity, moisture, floods and flashflood,
landslides, earthquakes, fires and wild fires. Identifications of the main risks was done by linking thehazards with site exposures and specific vulnerabilities to them. According to the analysis, the mostserious hazard affecting the site is earthquake, with its destructive power and possibilities to triggera landslides or fire, and flood and flashflood, not as direct impact but as a secondary consequence
thereby rising the moisture and humidity level, activating a landslide, and affecting the local communityand economy, to which a monastery is linked (Fig. 3).

78

2.12 Disaster Risk Analyses and Prevention in ŽIČA Monastery, Serbia

Fig. 3 Interconnections and relations between vulnerabilities, hazards and risks at Žiča Monastery

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 Participants

3. Plausible Disaster Scenario
The most plausible disaster scenario was created for evaluation of present emergency response
abilities: Earthquake M8 strikes at midday on religious holiday, when lot of believers are in the main
church and lot of clergy are in Episcopal palace. Main church tower collapses in upper part andfalls down to the left side, to the church of St. Sava. In same church, east vault collapsed during
the previous damage. Fortunately no one was in it. Ceilings are damaged in Episcopal palace but
there is no severe damage. Elders in monastery residence, main church and Episcopal palace needassistance for evacuation. Post earthquake fire starts at the monastery shop, ambulance and outernarthex in main church. Water sources near monastery shop, monastery yard and residential areas
are not working due to damage to the water network supply. According to imagined scenario, avirtual simulation of emergency situation was undertaken, which has highlighted main problems andchallenges – lack of the wide access roads, lack of the evacuation paths, problems with water sources,and high vulnerability to post-earthquake fires (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Earthquake simulation showing the problems and challenges during emergency situation

794. Disaster Risk Mitigation
Risk reducing measures were suggested for the plausible scenario. A mitigation measure wassuggested for every risk from the specific hazard after determining risk severity and the cost ofundertaking measure, for easier calculations and implementation.
For an instance, missing of evacuation plan protocol was recognized as a critical challenge, andsuggested measures include:• IIdentifying monastery area safe zones in DRM plan of local settlement. These zones are locatedon higher ground and are clear of any obstacles so that these can serve as refuge areas forpeople in different catastrophes-floods, earthquakes, forest fires. Besides saving human lives, thismeasure is aimed at creating a better coordination between the monastery and the surrounding
population as they can play an important role in disaster response and preparedness;• Creating evacuation routes inside monastery historic area, and marked it with visible signs on
several language (Serbian, English, Greek, and Russian);• Creating a free access to historic area, by redesigning exiting east gate. Access should be large
enough for passing of the fire truck, but should also allow fast evacuation of area, and should notcontain structural elements which can collapse in case of earthquake and produce blockage, andshould have certain level of incombustibility;• Planning an emergency response in case of fire and determination of roles and activities of nuns
and staff during the event. Forming a voluntary emergency unit from local near population andorganizing training and drills.
Total 18 measures for risk mitigation proposed, designed to block, avoid, reduce and detect risks.

5. Disaster Preparedness
Planning for disaster preparedness was started by drawing a list of human and financial resources,
identifying possible number of people to be evacuated during emergency situation, and developing
realistic expectation of the emergency equipment. The evacuation plan was designed to answer toall emergency situations, and to reduce to minimum human casualties. Also in addition to evacuation
plan, emergency response team is created with clear responsibilities and chain of command. The listof necessary emergency equipment and its locations on the site are created according to plausible
disaster scenario and risk mitigation measures (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Evacuation plan proposal

802.12 Disaster Risk Analyses and Prevention in ŽIČA Monastery, Serbia

6. Recovery Measures
Post disaster measures are suggested such as first aid measures in the short term, and recovery
of disaster damage and reducing further disaster risks in the long term. A responsible agency for
implementation is indicated for each measure:

Formulating Disaster Risk Management Plans by ITC 2015 ParticipantsInstance of short term measures are:
• Secure affected and damaged area by setting the emergency tape immediately after the disaster.
In case of serious damage of spaces which contains valuable artifacts, a guard person should bearranged to watch the sensitive area until its cleaned and investigated.
• Rapid damage assessment of all buildings and area, on site heritage first aid by conservation
experts.
• Providing the temporary accommodation for monastic community, with special consideration of
the needs of elderly nuns.
Long term measures include:• Analysis of conditions of the buildings with necessary specialist investigation and survey.
• Determine priorities for repair, restoration or reconstruction, where necessary.
• Regular monitoring of buildings and area with high risk of collapse and landslide (total station
measures, laser scanning, plumb lines, angle level).
• Installing a fire alarm system.

7. Conclusion
DRM plan for cultural heritage is a complex set of actions and decisions with aim to reduce risk forhuman casualties and damage to building to minimal possible level, but also to ensure the protectionof heritage values. It is aimed at building certain resilience of heritage site, so that it can survive infuture catastrophic disasters and continue to serve as monuments and documents of human culture.
The plan is not static but needs to be constantly rechecked and evaluated, and this analysis of disasterrisk of Žiča Monastery, which started on International Training Course 2015 in Kyoto, Japan, is only afirst step in its planning and implementation.

References

1) Čanak Medić M, Todić B: Manastir Žiča, Republic Institute for Protection of Monuments of Cultureof Serbia, Belgrade, 1999.
2) Nenadović S: Restauratorski radovi na manastiru Žiči u proteklih sto godina, J. Saopštenja, Vol.1,
Institute for Protection of Monuments of Culture of P.R. Serbia, Belgrade, 1956.
3) Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery: Post-Disaster Needs Assessments Guidelines,
Vol. B, Social Sector-Culture, 2014.
4) UNISDR: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, Third UN World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015.
5) Floods Protection Operational Plan for City of Kraljevo, 2014.
6) Seismological Survey of Serbia: Report on Results and Activities after the Kraljevo Earthquake
03.11.2010 at 1:56, Belgrade, 2010.

81

3 Activity after the International Training
Course by Former Participants3.1 Preparing for and Responding to the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake,in Nepal, 2008
Kai WEISEICOMOS Nepal, ICORP, UNESCO Consultant

1. Introduction
Since participating in the International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural
Heritage in 2008 I have had the opportunity to converting this knowledge into practical applicationin Nepal. Various activities were directly linked to the course and research activities carried out by
Ritsumeikan University and I remained closely linked as a resource person. These preparations led
up to an actual earthquake in April 2015 which tested all that we had done over the previous sevenyears.
One kept hearing of the great Nepal Bihar Earthquake of 1934 and regularly experienced smaller
tremors. This raised concern that the next great earthquake would have devastating effect on the
Kathmandu Valley which had over the decades developed with uncontrolled urbanization. During
the past years the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site has been preparing for the earthquakethat was to strike Nepal. The rough assessment by the geologists, that there was a slip deficit
along the section of the Himalayan arc in western Nepal and an earthquake was eminent cameto be true. On Saturday 25 April 2015 a 7.8-magnitude earthquake did strike Nepal, with theepicentre about 40 kilometres northwest of Kathmandu. Even though there were several hundred
aftershocks, with one of 7.3-magnitude on 12 May 2015, the geologists have warned that not
sufficient energy has been released.
2. Preparing for the great earthquake
Throughout history it was through recurring tests of endurance and trial that communities learnt
to improve their cultural expressions and create a resilient cultural environment. Similarly in
Kathmandu during the early part of the second millennium CE the traditional buildings were first
adapted to fire hazards by introducing a system of brick fire walls that stopped the spread of fires
from one building to the next. These brick and timber buildings were then phase wise adapted
to withstand earthquakes by inserting wooden ties and pegs to dampen the seismic forces.
Innovative solutions were used to ensure structural stability against earthquakes for example bybuilding square timber temples laced with wooden bands on high stepped plinths that functioned
as base isolations.
In anticipation of the next big earthquake preparations were undertaken (Fig. 1). Several key
government officials went to training courses on disaster risk management. Regular community
meetings were held. Part of the international training course on disaster risk management for
urban heritage was carried out in Kathmandu. In November 2013 a week long symposium“Revisiting Kathmandu” was organized by ICOMOS Nepal, ICOMOS Scientific Committee for Risk
Preparedness, UNESCO and Department of Archaeology with support from the local site managers
in preparation to the countdown, linking the discussions between authenticity, management andcommunity with disaster risk reduction. The eightieth anniversary of the 1934 Great Nepal Bihar
Earthquake started the countdown to the next big earthquake.
One is however never fully prepared for such a formidable display of natural forces. Even
though the question of additional strengthening of monuments might be controversial for mostconservation experts, the need for maintenance and restoration was clearly witnessed. The systemand procedures for immediate response would also have needed to be established.

84

3.1 Preparing for and Responding to the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, in Nepal, 2008

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 1 Collapsed structures of the Hanuman Dhoka Palace Museum, Kathmandu © Kai Weise

3. The earthquake did strike – immediate response
On Saturday 25 April 2015 just before noon the 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck. It was anearthquake that seemed to specifically damage vernacular buildings and historical monuments.
Villages in 39 districts were affected with about half a million houses collapsing and a further
quarter million being severely damaged. The most badly affected were eleven districts within thearea spanning between Gorkha and Dolakha. Listed monuments were affected in 20 districts with
190 being recorded as having collapsed and 663 having been partially damaged.
The immediate response after the earthquake struck was to look for survivors. There were locations
where special events were being held on the Saturday and when the structures collapsed large
numbers were buried. The phenomenon we could observe in most heritage sites in the Kathmandu
Valley was that people seemed to instinctively contribute to salvaging and safeguarding thecomponents of the collapsed and damaged monuments (Fig. 2).
The first coordination meeting took place at the UNESCO Kathmandu Office just five days after
the earthquake, together with the various authorities and stakeholders, as well as organizations
involved in the cultural heritage sector. The following week the Earthquake Response Coordination
Office (ERCO) was established at the DOA. To ensure that all stakeholders for the preservationof historical monuments were working together with a shared approach the first two months were
declared a response phase. This meant that everything possible needed to be done to prepare

Fig. 2 Community and armed forces helping salvage from collapsed temple in Patan © Kai Weise85

the heritage sites for the onslaught of the Monsoon. The main construction materials such aswood, brick, roofing tiles and stone along with the artefacts and ornaments which were lying ina pile of rubble needed to be salvaged and stored. Damaged structures needed shoring andprotection from the rain. It was decided that a proactive approach would be applied to the World
Heritage properties, the sites on the Tentative List and the monuments on the categorized list of the
Department of Archaeology. The remaining monuments would need to be left to the communities
and local authorities for them to restore, however providing them with support and expertise whererequired.
4. Strategic planning – pacing reconstruction
The earthquake response in respect to cultural heritage has been strategically segregated into
phases. The first phase of two months was exclusively reserved for earthquake response which
involved preparing the affected cultural heritage for the oncoming rains. This was followed by themonsoon season when the rains don’t allow for much construction work to be carried out. The
efforts of the response phase are being monitored especially in respect to the effects of the rains
on damaged monuments. This next phase focused on planning and research is comprised of five
approaches.
4.1 Legal Approach
There was an immediate need for the preparation of policies and guidelines. The Post Earthquake
Rehabilitation Policy for Cultural Heritage was formulated by a team from the Earthquake
Response Coordination Office (ERCO) and was submitted to the ministry for adoption. The
Conservation Guidelines for Post 2015 Earthquake Rehabilitation (Conservation Guidelines 2015)
were formulated in line with the policy. The guidelines also look at sites, monuments and historicbuildings over time and introduce provisions for maintenance and renewal. This will be augmented
with a document defining rehabilitation processes and a related checklist.
4.2 Research Approach
Extensive research is required to better understand the complexity of the sites in historical as wellas technical terms. Detailed structural and material research of the damage on monuments suchas the Swayambhu Mahachaitya and Hanuman Dhoka palace will help retain most of the original
structure. Urban archaeology will investigate the foundation of collapsed temples and crosssections of the Durbar Squares to better understand the chronology of these sites. Geologicalresearch is required to study stability of slopes and soil
conditions. Furthermore the safeguarding and sorting of salvaged
artefacts would need to be carried out in systematic manner withdetailed inventories. Along with this, the conservation of mural
paintings will also need to be carried out.
4.3 Planning Approach
Several of the complex cultural heritage sites and historic
settlements will require specific “Rehabilitation Master Plans”.
These will be prepared for Hanuman Dhoka, Swayambhu,
Changu Narayan as well as Sankhu, Nuwakot and Gorkha.
The Rehabilitation Master Plan will help clarify the multitude of
involved donors, managers, supervisors and the communities. It
will also define how and over what time period the reconstruction
will realistically be carried out. This will require procedures forsupporting the restoration of settlements and traditional dwellings(Fig. 3).

86

Fig. 3 Archaeological investigations on thefoundations of Kastamandap which possibly
was the oldest structure in the Kathmandu ©
Kai Weise3.1 Preparing for and Responding to the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, in Nepal, 2008

4.4 Practical Approach
The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the monuments will only be possible if we haveknowledgeable and skilled artisans. The master crafts-persons must be identified andacknowledged. They must be seen as “living national treasures” as the Japanese do for “keepersof important intangible cultural properties”. The system of apprenticeship must immediately be
expanded to ensure that sufficient artisans are trained to allow for the restoration of the tangible
heritage. This would have to be coordinated with the procurement of appropriate materials.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

4.5 Information Approach
The damage assessment is linked to the collection of a lot of information which will be closely
linked to the preparation for post-earthquake rehabilitation. This will require a systematic databaseand easy access to information. For this it was decided to establish a database system using
ARCHES as the information platform. The process of establishing the database, working on theadaptation of the software as per local requirements and the establishment of inventories has beenchallenging.
5. Considerations for rehabilitation and cultural continuity
The rehabilitation of the communities and the cultural heritage will take many years. An initial six
year plan is being prepared so that certain targets are met by July 2021. Though there will be aformal system of carrying out the rehabilitation of many of the heritage sites, it will be the informalinterventions by the community that will be most critical. The response in most areas has been
controlled and communities have been obstinate not to give in to the dire circumstances. It is thisspirit of the communities that will be vital to ensure that recovery will take place rapidly.
In the reconstruction process, great care must however be taken to ensure that the reduction ofvulnerability is considered. This does not only mean structural stability of buildings but also thesocio-cultural systems that provide communities with support and resilience.
Great expectations are placed on intangible heritage as the vehicle for cultural continuity. The
rehabilitation of the cultural sites will depend more on the strength of the intangible than that of thetangible heritage. We talk of strengthening the monuments to withstand the impact of earthquakes.
There are misconceived ideas floating around promoting the use of modern technology andmaterials to ensure resilient structures. Over time it is not the structures that will persist. Culturalcontinuity can only be ensured through the knowledge and skills of the community being passed
on from generation to generation.
After a major disaster such as the recent earthquake, communities resort to their cultural roots toprovide strength and reassurance for
their healing and rehabilitation. The
fervour with which the festivals arecelebrated with people singing anddancing through the rubble strewn
streets shows their will to ensure
continuity. This can be the means ofunifying communities and creating
resilient societies (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Community celebrating Gaijatra festival in Nuwakot in the damaged palace
complex © Kai Weise87

3.2 Global Contribution of the International Training Program
towards Management of Cultural Heritage During Disasters
without Borders, in Turkey, 2008
Zeynep Gül ÜNALYıldız Technical University Faculty of Architecture Restoration Department GEA Search andRescue Group

1. Introduction
Since ten years, Ritsumeikan University ITC on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage(R-DMUCH ITC) has been an important training program for experts and people who dedicate theirlife to protect cultural heritage and its users against disasters. This is good evaluation period to see
what has been done and establish a road map for the future.
While contributing to my occupation, preserving cultural heritage, as well as voluntary human searchand rescue operations that I was part of, the program that I have been following for last six years,
enabled to establish new networking for these activities. It can be said that R-DMUCH ITC thathas been evolved beyond just training program in time with continuously expanding instructors
and participants, has effectively contributed towards activities aimed at managing disaster risks
of cultural heritage in different parts of the world. I can list the works that has been done with
substantial contributions from my colleagues who are in ITC network during this time.
2. Establishing national committee of ICOMOS ICORP Turkey
ICOMOS ICORP International Committee on Risk Preparedness and ICOMOS Turkey establishedthe ICORP Turkey after approval by ICOMOS Turkey during the National Committee meeting thattook place on June 9th, 2011 in Istanbul.
The main goal of ICORP Turkey is to promote sharing of experience and the development of amulti-disciplinary network to stimulate the protection of cultural heritage, and enhance the state ofrisk preparedness for cultural heritage sites against natural and human induced disaster in national
level.
Zeynep Gül Ünal (Chair) and Meltem Vatan Kaptan (Vice Chair), who are on the board of directorsof ICOMOS ICORP Turkey are R-DMUCH ITC 2010 participants.
3. Development of higher level strategy papers on disaster risk management of cultural
heritage in Turkey
Since start of the preparation for the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,
substantial work has been done to include cultural heritage in disaster risk reduction action plan
which Turkey has prepared. By publishing the directive, Republic of Turkey Disaster and Emergency
Management Authority (AFAD) assumed coordinator role for Turkey Disaster Management Strategy
Document (TAYSB); a higher level policy document which is advisory and binding for national
strategy, plans and actions matters that are related to disaster management.
Specifically ICORP Turkish members provided support with their expertise during preparation fordraft document. “Preserving historical and cultural heritage against disaster with critical infrastructuresand resources” was identified one of the four main goals that was determined in accordance with
“Minimize the effects of disasters on Our Country” vision in Turkey Disaster Management Strategy
Document. Works are being continued to make this matter a “strategic priority”.

88

3.2 Global Contribution of the International Training Program towards Managementof Cultural Heritage During Disasters without Borders, in Turkey, 2008

4. You can rescue heritage project
The project, “Youcanrescue – Role of Architects and Urban Planners in Reducing Disaster Risk”, thatwas launched with Yıldız Technical University International Center for Urban Studies YTU ICUS andGEA Search and Rescue Group partnership was exhibited in Bhutan, Finland, Japan, Spain, with
contribution of the team from R-DMUCH ITC network. A presentation and exhibition named “Powerof Collaboration: Youcanrescue Initiative” took placed during ITC 2014 training course as part ofthis project. At the end of the course, announcement was made for “Youcanrescue Heritage” thatis new section of the project that has so far reached more than 11.200 people by activities such asconferences, exhibitions, publications prepared between 2010 and 2014.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

A description of the project is as follows: “Our Rich Cultural Heritage is increasingly threatened
by Natural and Human Induced Disasters. “Youcanrescue Heritage” is an initiative launched by
ICOMOS-ICORP, YTÜ-ICUS and GEA SAR TURKEY aims at raising awareness for protecting ourcultural heritage from disasters by taking proactive activities aimed at mitigation and preparedness”.
The project is continuing with support from partners (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Signature ceremony of You Can Rescue Heritage Project that was held in Sendai 2015

5. Activities for preserving cultural heritage in conflict areas
As we know, conflicts generate significant risks to cultural heritage and its users due to destructionin areas where they occur. In order to support preserving cultural heritage in Middle East wherearmed conflicts are taking place, a team including Rohit Jigyasu, Bijan Rouhani, Zeynep Gül Ünal,Robert Bevan organized ICOMOS E-Learning Course: The Protection of Syrian Cultural Heritage In
Times of Armed Conflict between 2012-2013. The course context was shared in English, French andArabic language.
Support is given to prepare expert report “Cultural Heritage is Under the Risk due to Armed Conflicts
in Iraq and Syria” by the subcommittee on World Heritage Areas at risk due to Armed Conflict thatwas established by UNESCO Turkey National Commission on tangible cultural heritage. Within thisframework, doctoral dissertation “Protection of Cultural Heritage in Forced Migration Due to Naturaland Human Induced Disaster” by Saadet Gündoğdu Fidan that was coordinated by Zeynep GülÜnal has been included among the projects supported by YTÜ coordinatorship of scientific research
projects between 2016-2018.
6. Support for research and rescue operation, humanitarian assistance and documentation ofdamaged cultural heritage after April 25th 2015 Gorkha-Nepal earthquake
In 2015, one of the most important development besides projects, conferences, articles and training
especially focusing Preparation – Mitigation – Recovery stages of DRM, might have been the supportof heritage experts in search and rescue operations just after the disaster during “emergency
response” stage.

89

GEA search and rescue group was alarmed just after earthquake struck Nepal on April 25th 2015at 11:56 local time. First news about the situation about the region was received from our colleague
Kai Weise (R-DMUCH ITC 2008) who lives in Kathmandu. Soon after that communication had started
with colleague Rohit Jigyasu (R-DMUCH ITC Professor) and communication had been continued for
25 hours on and off. Prof. Jigyasu who knows the region very well, communicated important data
about the status of historical buildings and cultural sensitivity.
On the same day GEA search and rescue group consisting of 13 members left for Kathmandu andarchived documentation works about status of the damaged historical structures in Kathmandu
World Heritage Sites with approximately 3000 pictures in order to share with experts with permissionof local authorities after completing the search and rescue operations (photo 2-3-4-6).
After Gorkha earthquake, a decision had made to organize a workshop since both Istanbul andKatmandu are at the top of the list of 20 riskiest cities.

Fig. 2 Support photos form all around the world for You Can Rescue Heritage Initiative

Fig. 3 Photographic documentation works in Kathmandu World Heritage Site by GEA SAR after Gorkha earthquake.

Istanbul Branch of the Chamber of Architecture, Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers andArchitects has included “Heritage in Debris: Lessons from Nepal Earthquake” as a case study inthe 2015 Fall issue of its periodical Mimar-ist. Journal. Rohit Jigyasu, Kai Weise, Zeynep Gül Ünal,Aparna Tandon, Meltem Vatan Kaptan who are the instructors and/or participants in the international
training course contributed with their articles for this special issue, which I edited (Photo 5).
All the above activities show that ITC during last 10 years, is an important program carrying
importance beyond borders and globally contributing towards DRM of cultural heritage. Hoping forthe continuation of this successful program and expansion of its impact.

90

3.2 Global Contribution of the International Training Program towards Managementof Cultural Heritage During Disasters without Borders, in Turkey, 2008

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 5 Fall issue of Mimar-Ist. Journal-Instructors and/or participantsin ITC program contributed with their articles which form the"Case File"

References
1) Jigyasu R: Reducing Disaster Risks to Urban Cultural Heritage: Global Challenges andOpportunities, Dossier Heritage in Debris: Lessons from Nepal Earthquake, Mimar-İst. Journal,
Year 15, Vol. 54, pp.46-52, 2015.
2) Ünal Z G: Bringing Order to Chaos : Managing Seismic Risk for Historic Structures, Conservation
Perspectives The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, pp.14-15, Spring 2015.
3) Ünal Z G: Disaster Risk Management in Heritage Sites: Reduction of Grey Zones, Dossier Heritagein Debris: Lessons from Nepal Earthquake, Mimar-İst. Journal, Year 15, Vol. 54, pp.41-45, 2015.
4) Vatan M: Seismic Risks on Cultural Heritage: Lessons for Istanbul Learnt From Nepal, Dossier
Heritage in Debris: Lessons from Nepal Earthquake, Mimar-İst. Journal, Year 15, Vol. 54, pp.5359, 2015.
5) Weise K: “Cultural continuity through cyclical renewal: Responding to the 2015 earthquake in
Nepal”, Dossier Heritage in Debris: Lessons from Nepal Earthquake, Mimar-İst. Journal, Year 15,
Vol. 54, pp.28-33, 2015.

91

3.3 A Result of Arson on Wooden Heritage and Disaster Mitigation
Planning, in Korea, 2012
Sangsun JO
Senior Researcher, National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage (NRICH), Rep. of KOREA

1. Brief history of disaster mitigation system in Korea and abstract of presentation
The cultural heritage protection law was enacted in 1962 in Korea. Also management of cultural
heritage by national government began in the same year. After that, there were so many damages tocultural heritage caused by fires, earthquakes and typhoons, etc. but the arson in Sungnyemun＊1on
8th February 2008 has changed management system totally.
In management system of Korea, the serial number of cultural heritage has an enormous meaning.
Especially the national treasure number 1, Sungnyemun located in center of Seoul, is a representativeof Korea itself. On February 8, 2008, a 70-years old man who had a complaint about the landcompensation lit fire in the gate by gas lighter and thinner. As the gate was located in center of Seoul
city, many firefighters and fire engines arrived immediately and started to extinguish the fire. But
unfortunately they did not know the structural characteristic of traditional architecture＊2.
The fire was broadcast in the country in real time and was extinguished after 4 hours. It caused
severe damage to the entire structure. Next morning, we noticed that entire 2nd floor and part of the
1st floor roof was destroyed.
I took part in its restoration as a technical and historical researcher for five years until reopening.
This incident brought many changes to the management system of cultural heritages. Due to it,
firefighting equipment and disaster prevention system of all wooden cultural heritages in the country
were checked and upgraded. Also, precise survey and measurement of the wooden cultural heritage
was simultaneously undertaken by the national and local government simultaneously for years. And
its result and drawings were distributed to fire stations. Cultural Heritage Security Policy Division wasestablished in CHA (Cultural Heritage Administration) and regular monitoring system was installedat important heritage sites. And the day of the incident was designated as a ‘disaster prevention dayof cultural heritage’ and the fire station of each province conduct a fire fighting exercise on cultural
heritage annually. Most of all, this accident brought awareness to public that cultural heritage could
be a target of terror. And it roused up social interest about conservation and management of cultural
heritage.
I, as a technical and historical researcher, took part in the Sungnyemun restoration project andimplemented the disaster prevention system. During the project, I participated in ITC 2012 andpresented about the arson and its recovery process (Fig. 1-3).

＊1 One of the four main gates of the Seoul city wall built to protect the capital in 1396. The gate was renovatedin 1448 and later between 1961~1963. It had since remained the oldest building in Seoul until 2008. It was
designated as national treasure 1 in 1962. It is consisted of wooden 2-storied pavilion and stone basement.
And it has special architectural characteristics of early 15th century and also is a representative heritage of
Korea until today.
＊2 The basic structure of traditional wooden building is consisted of wooden column, beam and purlin. And
above this, a thick roof which is consisted of rafter, wooden plate, wood chip, soil and roof tiles. And firefighters
extinguished only visible fire on column, floor and rafter. But while they concentrated on those visible fires,
invisible fires spread out inside of roof. When they realized this situation, it was too late. Though they did theirbest that they could, they have no choice but to watch the collapse of national treasure.

92

3.3 A Result of Arson on Wooden Heritage and Disaster Mitigation Planning, in Korea, 2012

Fig. 1 Arson on Sungnyemun (Feb. 10, 2008)

Fig. 2 The result of arson (Feb. 11, 2008)

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 3 Restored Sungnyemun (May. 4, 2013)

2. Result of training and application in practice
The International Training Course (ITC) 2012 was a very helpful opportunity to my work related todisaster prevention and mitigation. And the network between trainees and lecturers is a very helpful
source of that field. Through it, I got useful information and conducted exercises during the fieldwork. Among many lectures of ITC 2012, DIG (Disaster Imagination Game) was so impressive and I
could adjust its concept and methodology to my work site.
After the course, I wrote a report on it and summarized all lectures. Then I uploaded it to internal
notice board system and shared with my colleagues of CHA. Of course, I have also referred to it forplanning and installation of disaster prevention system at Sungnyemun.
As I mentioned before, the main reason for failure of fire extinguishing system was the ignoranceof traditional architecture and it could be solved through adequate education. But considering theinherent vulnerability of wood to fire, I needed to find a more practical solution. So I and my teaminstalled special fire resistant textile inside the roof to prevent spreading of fire. As the arson wascaused by people, we have examined and installed various equipments such as infrared camera,
motion-detection camera and alarm system, and heat-detecting sensors. Of course, many fire
extinguishers such as water gun, portable fire extinguisher, halon fire extinguisher have also been
installed. And as I have learned, we have simulated a situation of fire. And according to its result, wehave set a evacuation route and fire engine’s route. In the management office and guard posts, morethan 5 people always monitor the system at Sungnyemun. So in case of emergency such as a fire,they will activate all system and try first step of extinguishing according to the manual.
Eventually, it was the first example of disaster prevention system. Before this site, there was no93

‘system’ but only ‘tools’ existed. But currently, CHA give subsidies to local governments which needbudget to install disaster prevention system of important cultural heritage. And local governments orowners of cultural heritage visit Sungnyemun as a reference (Fig. 4, 5).

Fig. 4 Dashboard about monitoring equipment and emergency route of Sungnyemun

Based on the training results, as an
associate member of ICOMOS-Korea
committee, I suggested the basic
principle of disaster prevention andplan of disaster mitigation at the gatesof Seoul city wall. And I also presented
its result to public at ‘symposium for
inscription as UNESCO World heritage,conservation, management and useof the Seoul city wall’.(May 15, 2013,
Seoul) Now Seoul municipal authority
prepare a detailed management planfor the Seoul city wall (Fig. 6, 7).

Fig. 5 Simulation training in case of fire at Sungnyemun

Fig. 6 A poster on symposium of Seoul city wall94

3.3 A Result of Arson on Wooden Heritage and Disaster Mitigation Planning, in Korea, 2012

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 7 Presentation about disaster mitigation of gates of Seoul city wall

3. Current state and future plan
I currently work at local branch of National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage (NRICH) in Naju
city as a senior researcher. And I am in charge of excavation sites of my institute and conduct
monitoring on other archaeological sites in Jeolla province. Also as an official, I am in charge ofconsultation with local municipalities and archaeological bodies.
But I and my colleagues know well that the disaster prevention and mitigation is very important andit should be studied in various fields such as architecture, archaeology, museology, etc. In next year,
a disaster prevention team will be set up at NRICH. The team will be in charge of periodic monitoringof important heritage and will conduct analysis on structures. Also it will carry out various researches
on disaster mitigation of cultural heritage. And I would like to add my capacities to the team and if I
get a chance to join it, I will strive to develop a disaster prevention plan for conservation of cultural
heritage.
References
1) http://english.cha.go.kr
2) Cultural Heritage Administration: Sungmyemun, its journey of glory, loss and recovery, 2009.
3) Lee eun wa : An evaluation study of defense measures for wooden cultural heritage since theSungnyemun fire with a focus on Jongmyo shrine and the four main palaces, University of Seoul,
MA.2012.

95

3.4 Risk Management Planning for the Archaeological Sites in İzmir,
TurkeySibel Yıldırım ESEN
Architect / Culture and Tourism Expert, Ministry of Culture and Tourism; METU; Turkey

1. Introduction
During the International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) of Cultural
Heritage, organized in 2012 by the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at
Ritsumeikan University, I worked on formulating a DRM Plan for the Agora Archaeological Site inİzmir, Turkey. After the ITC, risk assessment and management of archaeological sites informedmuch of my work. First, it shaped the premise of my doctoral research, which scrutinized factors
threatening archaeological remains in and around historic city of İzmir. Through my PhD dissertation,
titled “Risk assessment of archeological heritage at territorial scale: the case of the İzmir Metropolitan
Area”1), I proposed a new methodology to evaluate the risk map of archaeological sites, combiningalphanumeric and cartographic data about natural and human-induced hazards and managerial andcontextual vulnerabilities of sites, through geographic information systems (GIS). 229 archaeologicalsites located in the İzmir Metropolitan Area have been taken into account when developing anassessment system (Fig. 1). A further progression of this assessment framework has been possible
through carrying out a postdoctoral research at ICCROM, Rome2). Utilizing the vulnerability and risk
maps prepared through my doctoral research, lately, my recent work has been developing the initialframework of a DRM plan for the archaeological sites located in the 21 districts of İzmir, includingAliağa, Balçova, Bayındır, Bayraklı, Bornova, Buca, Çiğli, Foça, Gaziemir, Guzelbahçe, Karabağlar,Karşıyaka, Kemalpaşa, Konak, Menderes, Menemen, Narlıdere, Seferihisar, Selçuk, Torbalı, andUrla.

Fig. 1 Map of archaeological sites located in the study area. The
information about archaeological sites has been provided by IBB
and the Turkish Archaeological Settlements Project96

3.4 Risk Management Planning for the Archaeological Sites in İzmir, Turkey

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

2. Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the Archaeological Sites in İzmir
In urban settlement areas that have rich archaeological heritage, with considerable number oflisted sites, strategies should be developed for reducing large-scale impacts of possible hazards
on heritage values. Hence, formulating a DRM Plan is an important aspect of managing risks tocultural heritage in historic cities such as İzmir. İzmir is located by the Aegean Sea in the western
Turkey. It is one of the oldest port cities of the world. Because of its significant location and naturalcharacteristics, the city and its surrounding have housed important civilizations throughout thehistory encompassing at least 8,000 - 9,000 years3). Currently, being the third most populous city
in Turkey, İzmir is a metropolis, where its metropolitan districts are managed by the Greater İzmir
Metropolitan Municipality (IBB)4). In the study area, the archaeological sites include 209 registeredsites and 20 assets without a registration status. The sites range from mounds to monumental
structures, or ancient settlements. Among those sites, the ancient city of Ephesus is of internationalsignificance, as it is inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. The sites which are currently being
excavated include Ayasuluk Tepesi, Bayraklı, Büyük Kale, Küçük Kale, Ephesus, Ege Gübre/Kyme,
Kadifekale, Klaros, Klazomenai, Limantepe, Metropolis, Panaztepe, Phokaia, Smyrna-Agora, Teosand Ulucak Hoyük5). As tourist destinations, Agora, Teos, Metropolis, Klazomenai, Klaros, Ephesus,
Ayasuluk and St. Jean Archaeological Sites function as site museums6), and have social, culturaland economic values (Fig. 2,3). Safeguarding archaeological sites in Turkey is among the main
responsibilities of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT), which works at the national, regional
and local levels. IBB has the responsibility of planning the built environment. Since 2000’s, IBB has
carried out conservation projects around the city center.

Fig. 2 Agora Archaeological Site

Fig. 3 Teos Archaeological Site

97

3. Hazards and Vulnerabilities of the Archaeological Sites
In addition to natural processes of decay, potential hazards that may have negative impacts on thearchaeological sites are identified as earthquake, flood, landslide, and human factors, including
urbanization, infrastructure development, aggressive agricultural activities, and illicit digging. For
the purposes of this paper, two disaster scenarios are considered. The first scenario is about theoccurrence of an earthquake, with a potentially disastrous outcome; because, İzmir is located on
the seismically active parts of the Aegean Plate7). Significant quakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater on
the Richter scale) have been recorded within the area in history8). The second scenario is that of asevere flood. Severe rainstorms have led to flash floods many times, with an increasing magnitude9).
According to Kutluca and Ozdemir (2008), land-use and urbanization, topography with slopes, andgeomorphology are the main factors affecting the impacts of floods in İzmir.
The lack of regular maintenance increases the vulnerability of the archaeological assets to natural
hazards. Except for the sites that are currently being excavated and/or those that function assite museums, there is not a management system for the 93% of those studied 229 sites. Lack ofmaintenance of exposed archaeological remains adds to the risk of the damage to the heritage
values. Due to their location, several archaeological sites in the study area are also vulnerable todamage during a severe flood. This is the case for the sites located within the Flood Hazard Areasin Menemen and Kemalpaşa districts10).
4. Developing Strategies for Mitigation and Preparation
Developing and implementing preventive measures within the entire territory requires actions at
different levels. At policy level, there is a need for integrating CHM into DRM systems administeredby the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD); because, policies of AFAD do notinclude consideration for the cultural heritage that may be impacted by the disaster or the response
to it. Besides, MCC should work on at the national, provincial and site levels to reduce risks toarchaeological sites and values associated with the onset of a disaster (Table 1).
Table 1 The national level and provincial level strategies that may be implemented by the MCC

National Level Strategies

Provincial Level Strategies• integrating a DRM approach in the National
Conservation Law;
• improving the administrative framework within
the MCC, assigning units responsible for DRM;
• prioritizing risk management of the sites, andhighlighting the value that it would bring to thecommunity, region, or country;• building financial, human, technical capacity towork on the challenges;• building partnerships with other public
institutions, municipalities, and local
communities to work towards safeguarding
cultural heritage.

• building a strategy for mitigation works byprioritizing the sites that are at the greatest risk
or pose the greatest danger and by taking into
account urgency, values and attributes of thesites, and benefits to the communities;• engaging with the local communities, sitemanagers, local administrations, disaster
response agencies in formulation of an
integrated DRM Plan.

At site level, mitigation strategies should be developed for each site separately to reduce risks
associated with earthquake and flood. Within the MCC, teams that can supervise the development
and implementation of the DRM plan in preparation for disaster as well as during the response andrecovery phases need to be established.

98

3.4 Risk Management Planning for the Archaeological Sites in İzmir, Turkey

5. Conclusive Remarks
Disaster risk management of cultural heritage is important to prevent damages and ensurepreservation of the cultural heritage of İzmir. The General Directorate of Cultural Heritage andMuseums, where I work as a Culture and Tourism Expert, has the authority and responsibility todevelop strategies for protecting heritage values in the face of various hazards, through cooperatingwith all related public and private entities. The regional and local offices of MCC, AFAD, IBB, themunicipalities, the excavation teams, the communities and various other stakeholders should be
involved in the formulation, development, adoption and implementation of the DRM plan for thearchaeological sites. In addition to territorial level planning, DRM plans should be formulated at thesite level for sites that are at risk or pose danger. Given the risks associated with this region, and thechallenges associated with the high population density, DRM of the cultural assets in İzmir is a vital
part of building resilience for the future.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

References
1) Yildirim Esen S: Risk assessment of archeological heritage at territorial scale. the case of theİzmir Metropolitan Area, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, 2014.
The author’s PhD thesis was supervised by Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayşe Güliz Bilgin Altınöz and Prof.
Dr. Ömür Bakırer. This dissertation was awarded by the University as the best thesis of the year.
2) The research undertaken at ICCROM in 2015 was supported by TUBITAK, Scientific and Techn.
Research Council of Turkey.
3) Governorship of İzmir: İzmir tasinmaz kultur mirasi enventeri, İzmir Provincial Directorate ofCulture and Tourism, 2012.
4) IBB : The Metropolitan Area Map, http://www.izmir.bel.tr/BuyuksehirSinirHaritasi/125/172/tr,
accessed 27 November 2015.
5) İzmir Prov.l Dir. of Culture: Excavations, http://www.izmirkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,77153/kazi-alanlari.
html, accessed Sept. 2015.
6) General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums: The list of museums and site museums, http://
www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,43253/bakanligimiza-bagli-muzeler.html?_tag1=635820317210000000,
accessed on Nov. 2015
7) Kutluca A K & Ozdemir S: Landslide, earthquake & flood hazard risks of İzmir metropolitan city,
A case: Altindag landslide areas, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, v.
24, pp. 991-996, 2008.
8) Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute National Earthquake
Monitoring Centre : Historical earthquakes, udim.koeri.boun.edu.tr, accessed 10 November
2013; Kutluca, A.K. & Ozdemir, S. : ibid.
9) Kutluca A K & Ozdemir S: ibid.
10) Yildirim Esen S: ibid.

99

3.5 Flood 2014, Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno, in Italy, 2013

Barbara CARANZA
President of Chief (Cultural Heritage International Emergency Force) Onlus

1. Introduction, the event
From the beginning of the twentieth century the Bisagno’ area has been affected by several
architectural abuses. The result has been a series of cyclical floods with a frequency that has
increased with every passing decade. The Staglieno Cemetery, located on a hillside in the Bisagno
valley and extending over an area of 330,000 m² coincides largely with the area of the floodings ofthe river Bisagno and others streams, these latter completely buried and forced inside the buildingsof the cemetery. On the night of the 9th to the 10th October 2014, and in the following days, there
occurred a terrible flood, as a result of heavy rainfall, 395 mm in 24 hours, in different areas of the cityand province. In the municipality of Genoa, the river Bisagno, Sturla, Fereggiano, and Torbella have
overflowed. In the province of Genoa: Scrivia, the Stura, the Entella and rio Carpi (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 The River Bisagno, the night of the 9th October

The damages calculated according to estimates, for now, amount to 250 million Euros in theprovince. In the estimation, only 25 million for the only city of Genoa. A meteorological event of wide
proportions, aggravated by the strong self regenerating storm. The clash of the two streams, one of
hot air and the other of cold air is the cause of the V-shape thunderstorm, so called for its V-shapeand also called self-healing. After studying the meausurements of the winds, it was possible tounderstand as the encounter between northern cold currents, called Tramontana wind, and thosesouthern hot humid currents, called Scirocco wind, from the Tyrrhenian Sea, cause a steady microwind fronte. The Consequence was continuous rainfall that fell on the same area again and again.
2. The rescue intervention
After the last flood, the non- profit association Chief Onlus has been charged by the Municipality of
Genoa and by the Superintendence for the Architectural and Artistic Heritage of Liguria to rescue
and to give first aid to the flooded monumental part of the cemetery. On the 18th of october thewriter, with the aim of identifying the extent of the affected area and the best way to proceed, made asurvey with the Municipality and the Superintendence. The water flooded even the highest galleries
and everything was covered in mud. It was urgent and necessary to proceed as soon as possible
in the removal of debris and mud and the cleaning of marble flooring. There were many problems
with very little time. In many aeras the water pipes exploded and in other parts of the plumbing thepressure was very low. Electricity was not available. The marble floor of the galleries was damaged,100

3.5 Flood 2014, Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno, in Itary, 2013

Fig. 2 The River Bisagno, the night of the 9th October

The history of the Compagnia Unica’ birth linked to two factors: on the one hand, the needs of theport and the goods, which required a workforce available and flexible and at the same time reliable,
professionally prepared and organized to cope with a very diverse and often unpredictable job; on theother hand, the bargaining power of workers hired for autonomy, critical skills and great organizational
strength, created hardships for the same workers that were in other respects indispensable. The
Compagnia Unica decided to give 20 workers volunteers, under the responsability of the Chief
Onlus. The team of Chief Onlus has also managed to obtain the equipment needed to do the job.
A lot of the material was donated thanks to a campaign on social networks and newspapers. On
Monday 21st the volunteers began work, and the rescue operations in three areas: the gallery , theporch below the east section, and a portion of the front gallery (Fig. 3).

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

many tombstones of burials had moved from their areas. The underground rivers burst on thesurface, caused the explosion of other recent burials. In addition to everything, we had to manage
the problems related to public health and contamination. We also had to face with the psychologicalaspects for both families and operators who would have to intervene to rescue cultural heritage. We
therefore decided that on the 19th and 20th of October we would contacted specialized operators
for the recovery of bones. Meanwhile Chief Onlus would call a sufficient number of professional
restorers of Cultural Heritage, residents in Liguria. The clause of residence in the region has become
indispensable because the State of Emergency had not been declared and we could not offer ourvolunteers accommodation. Through our network of contacts gained after years of operations in
the aeras of emergency in our country, we were able to reach in only two days 60 professionals
volunteers with availability of one / two days. Reflecting on the physical nature heaviness of the work,
because it would be too heavy to handle marble slabs and taking into account that the percentageof the volunteers were mostly female, the author decided to involve the Compagnia Unica of the portof Genoa in our activities. In the opinion of the author to involve more 'associations of the territory andhistorical corporations would make the community participate more (Fig. 2).

Fig. 3 Volunteers at work

101

The intervention of Chief was not for restoration work. Its task was to create the conditions of the site
immediately prior to the flood. 80 Volunteers worked five days in almost 300 linear meters, and a
total of 1500 square meters were cleaned. During the work and after, the media was contacted andinformed about what was going on inside the monumental cemetery of Staglieno and the response
was great even on social media like twitter and facebook and there was a large consensus also at
institutional level (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Before and after the rescue intervention.

3. Conclusions
It remains clear that the intervention of Chief Onlus has only served to buffer the effects of theflood and that this will not prevent another disaster. The purpose of Chief Onlus currently is to push
public opinion and the Municipality to implement all the necessary actions to secure the monumental
cemetery of Stagliano and the Bisagno’ area. This experience has prepared us for the future andcould be an example of resilience. First, we have created within the city of Genoa and acrossthe region, a strong coherent unit of volunteers and associations, a very strong network that willable, under the supervision of Chief, to intervene in case of disaster, with more determination andeffectiveness. Secondly, we have created a relationship of mutual trust with the Compagnia Unica of
the port. They have given to Chief a dedicated space in the port area where it’s possible to keep thematerials and equipment needed to intervene in a time of crisis. The port area is safe and accessible
24h a day.

102

3.6 From Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic City of Ayutthaya
towards Capacity Building in Disaster Risk Management forSoutheast Asian Heritage, in Thailand, 2013
Hatthaya SIRIPHATTHANAKUN
Specialist in Cultural Heritage Conservation, Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organisation-Regional Center for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SEAMEO-SPAFA)

1. Developing disaster risk management plan for the historic city of Ayutthaya
Since the most severe flood in the history of Thailand hit the Historic City of Ayutthaya in 2011, theFine Arts Department, a governmental agency responsible to World Cultural Heritage Properties ofThailand, has attempted to restore and recover the city from the impact due to flood. On one hand
the works comprising preliminary condition survey, salvaging as well as emergency consolidation
and restoration were carried on mainly by the Department’s regional office. On the other handofficials, from Office of Architecture based in Bangkok, including conservation architects, landscapearchitects and civil engineers were assigned to do condition survey and damage assessment andpropose recommendation to protect the Historic City of Ayutthaya from professional point of view.
The Landscape Architectural Group proposed the Fine Arts Department to do disaster risk
management (DRM) plan for the Historic City of Ayutthaya as a long term measure in order to prepare
and mitigate any impacts from all potential natural hazards i.e. flood, earthquake etc. This proposal
was agreed and I, as the Fine Arts Department’s official at that time, was allowed to attend the 8thInternational Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage 2013 organised by
the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
with a mission to carry on disaster risk management plan for the Historic City of Ayutthaya after
returning to work (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 During the meeting to integrate disaster risk mitigation measure into the Master Plan for theDevelopment and Conservation of the Historic City of Ayutthaya

The development of DRM Plan was initiated along with the project “Developing a Flood Risk Mitigation
Plan for Ayutthaya World Heritage Site” which is a collaborative project of UNESCO-Institute for Water
Education – IHE, UNESCO Bangkok, Asian Institute of Technology-AIT supported technically by Geo
Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency - GISTDA and the Fine Arts Department
while being funded by Asian Development Bank-ADB. Because of various activities done by FAD
and UNESCO Bangkok such as workshops, meetings in particular with Head of Ayutthaya Provincial
Office, Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, public informing, public hearing and etc.

103the first draft of Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic City of Ayutthaya, using the methodology
provided by the training course, came up in early 2015.
However it still needs to be developed further and subsequently implemented. As such recently theFine Arts Department has decided to revise the Master Plan for the Development and Conservationof the Historic City of Ayutthaya. The draft of Disaster Risk Management Plan was introduced andhas been integrated into the Master Plan as Disaster Risk Mitigation Plan. At present this work is stillgoing on and due to complete soon. Afterwards the master plan will be submitted to the Cabinet toget approval for the implementation.
2. Workshop on disaster risk management planning for the Fine Arts department
When the formulation of Disaster Risk Management Plan for the Historic City of Ayutthaya wasproposed to the Fine Arts Department, the capacity building activities for the department’s staff suchas training course or workshop were also considered. The reason is that the experience, knowledge
and awareness in doing disaster risk management plan for cultural heritage of the involving staff waslimited. Therefore the five-day-workshop on disaster risk management planning using Historic Cityof Ayutthaya as a case study which was supported financially by UNESCO project was held from27-31 May 2014 at Ayutthaya Province, Thailand. Dr. Rohit Jigyasu was the key resource person
for the workshop along with the experts from UNESCO-IHE and AIT while participants were the
mid-career professionals in cultural heritage conservation i.e. architects, archaeologists, curators,site managers and conservation technicians from all World Cultural Heritage Properties which aremanaged by the Fine Arts Department. So officials from other heritage sites will get benefit from theworkshop (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 The opening session of Workshop on Disaster Risk Management Planning for the Fine Arts
Department on the 27 May 2014

The workshop aims not only to increase the awareness of the Department’s staff on disaster risks tocultural heritage and to provide the preliminary understanding on DRM planning methodology but togather and produce information for developing the DRM Plan as well. The outcome of this workshop
which was risk identification and assessment of the Historic City of Ayutthaya was included in thefirst draft of DRM Plan for the Historic City of Ayutthaya mentioned above (Fig. 3).

104

3.6 From Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic City of Ayutthaya toward Capacity Buildingin Disaster Risk Management for Southeast Asian Heritage, in Thailand, 2013

3. SEAMEO-SPAFA Initiative on disaster risk management for Southeast Asian cultural heritage
Within the Southeast Asian Region, in 2004 Tsunami hit Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia and widely
impacted South Asian countries such as Sri Lanka and India. Then the 2008 severe cyclonic storm
Nargis in Myanmar, the 2011 catastrophic flood in Thailand and the 2013 Bohol earthquake andTyphoon Haiyan in the Philippines attacked the region. This devastated natural hazards brought
tremendous loss of lives, economic damages as well as negative impact on cultural heritage.
Accordingly Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation - Regional Centre for Archaeology
and Fine Arts known as SEAMEO-SPAFA has been increasingly concerned and aware of thenecessity to protect the cultural heritage of this region from these disasters through strengthening
the capacity of relevant professionals, disseminating the knowledge and information and facilitating
the collaboration among the SEAMEO member countries in disaster risk management. Therefore
the Centre proposed Disaster Risk Management for Southeast Asian Cultural Heritage Initiative
under the Flagship Project on Conservation in the Tropics which hopefully will get technicalsupport from international organisations and the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural
Heritage, Ritsumeikan University which has a long experience in the field. At the 30th SEAMEOSPAFA Governing Board Meeting held at Luang Prabang, Lao PDR from 14-15 September 2015 theproposal was approved by the Governing Board which comprises high level officials i.e. DirectorGenerals, Executive Directors or Rectors in charge of cultural heritage conservation, protection andeducation from all SEAMEO member countries.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 3 Lecture and group work during the 2nd-5th day of the workshop

According to this initiative, serial trainings and workshops will be carried out from 2016 to 2020. In
principle the activity will be held once a year at a selected Southeast Asian historic city comprisingvarious types of cultural heritage, movable and immovable, as well as tangible and intangible, inorder to reach the goal of integrated and holistic conservation approach. Remarkably this initiative
will be developed and discussed among the collaborators/partners as well as representatives
from SEAMEO member countries to seek for the real needs of this region at a consultative meeting
proposed to be held in April 2016.

105

3.7 Advocating DRM Planning for Cultural Heritage in Australia; andCase Study: Bushfire Mitigation for Natural and Cultural Heritagein Northern Sydney, in Australia, 2014
Catherine FORBESGML Heritage, Australian Institute of Architects, Australia ICOMOS, ICOMOS-ICORP

1. Advocacy for DRM Planning for Cultural Heritage in Australia
Although Australia is relatively well organised in preparing for and responding to the various natural
hazards that afflict the country on a regular basis (particularly storm, cyclone, flood and fire), very
little attention is paid to inclusion of cultural heritage in emergency planning or in undertaking disasterrisk management (DRM) planning for cultural heritage sites other than museums and galleries.
Since completing the international training course (ITC) at Ritsumeikan University, I have been
actively involved in promoting DRM Planning for cultural heritage at many levels. This has involved
making presentations to government authorities at local and state level, as well as to members ofprofessional bodies, including Australia ICOMOS and the Australian Institute of Architects. I haveparticipated in local community meetings on flood risk, meetings with special interest groups, suchas the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society on flood mitigation and severe weather
events, and a UNISDR round table session on Making Cities Resilient with Margareta Wahlström,
representatives of the City of Sydney and infrastructure providers. I have also presented my ITC
case study on DRM Planning for The Rocks, Sydney1), at disaster and heritage industry conferences.
2. DRM Planning for The Rocks, Urban Heritage Precinct in Sydney
Following presentation of my case study to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) (thestate authority that manages the historic urban precinct of The Rocks), there have been several
positive outcomes:
・A new risk manager has been appointed and further discussions are planned to develop the
DRM Plan for The Rocks.
・Tenders have been called for seismic upgrade of the historic power station chimney that stands
high above the precinct and poses a serious risk to other built heritage within the precinct andpeople if it fails (Fig. 1).
・Tenders have also been called for much needed roof and masonry repairs to Campbell’s Storesand drainage works to mitigate risks from flooding, tidal incursion and rising sea levels (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 The power station chimney standing high above the heritage precinct of The Rocks
is to be seismically upgraded and the nineteenth century stone warehouses ofCampbell’s Stores are to be repaired

1063.7 Advocating DRM Planning for Cultural Heritage in Australia; and Case Study:
Bushfire Mitigation for Natural and Cultural Heritage in Northern Sydney, in Australia, 2014

4. Project Work with GML Heritage
GML Heritage, the private heritage consultancy with which I work, has also provided opportunities toengage clients (both government and corporate) in the concept of DRM planning for their heritage
sites. Potential risks are identified in conservation management plans for heritage sites and DRM
Planning is recommended as part of the management of those sites. Two recent GML projects
requiring implementation of disaster risk mitigation measures have included: the seismic upgrade ofa six-storey unreinforced stone façade to a nineteenth century commercial building in Sydney; andbushfire mitigation for cultural heritage sites located in bushland on the northern shore of Sydney
Harbour.
5. Case Study: Bushfire Mitigation for Natural and Cultural Heritage in Northern Sydney,
Australia
Wildfires, known locally as bushfires, are seasonal hazards that affect most parts of Australia from thetropical north to the temperate south, and even cool alpine regions. Every year the country suffers
significant losses of life, farmland, bushland, infrastructure, housing and cultural heritage. Bushfire
management is an ever-evolving process in Australia, with each disastrous event carefully evaluatedto improve mitigation, preparation and response strategies for the future. The annual fire season for
Sydney is throughout the summer months, but over recent years, due to rising temperatures and the
El Niño effect, this has extended to include spring and autumn2).

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

3. Knowledge Sharing through ICOMOS-ICORPOne of the most positive things I have done in the last year has been to join ICOMOS-ICORP(UNESCO’s International Council on Monuments and Sites – International Committee on Risk
Preparedness). Through online discussions I have been able to learn from and share with otherheritage and disaster experts around the world. As an expert member of ICOMOS and ICOMOSICORP I was invited to participate in the UNESCO reactive monitoring mission to Nepal to assess
the state of conservation of the World Heritage property of the Kathmandu Valley. My training in DRM
planning through the ITC at Ritsumeikan University and the knowledge I gained through ICOMOSICORP supplemented my many years of experience working as a heritage conservation architectand equipped me well for the task. This involved reviewing the earthquake damage to the heritage
property, the emergency response undertaken by the local authorities and plans for recovery. The
experience highlighted several issues that will need to be addressed by many countries, including
Australia, following such catastrophic events. These include:・The loss of traditional skills and knowledge resulting from modernization of the constructionindustry will make rebuilding our heritage in the future challenging, once it is lost.
・Past over-exploitation of resources means that the necessary materials may not be available
for reconstruction. In the case of Nepal, quality building timber, a key element in the traditional
seismic design of the heritage structures, is in very short supply.
・Buildings in poor condition, whether due to changing environmental conditions or lack of routine
maintenance, do not survive well.
The need to address such issues will be highlighted in any future presentations or discussions I haveon DRM planning for cultural heritage.

5.1 Physical context
The northern part of Sydney is at particularly high risk from bushfire due to its rugged terrain andpattern of urban development that extends along the ridgelines. Forests (bushland) fill the intervening
valleys. The fires race up the steep slopes fanned by hot dry winds. The heritage sites that are thefocus of a GML study are located on steep slopes close to the ridgeline of a headland that juts into
Sydney Harbour from its northern shore. The buildings are surrounded by natural bushland, much ofwhich is within the Sydney Harbour National Park.

107

5.2 Bushfire management
For this study, bushfire management must take into consideration not only the risk to human lives
and built heritage, but also the risks to the natural environment and its fragile ecosystems. Althoughmany Australian plants rely on fire for reproduction, others are very sensitive to it. In planning hazard
reduction burns, which are generally undertaken in the cooler winter months to reduce fuel loads(Fig. 2), the intervals between burns are determined by the specific requirements of the various plant
species3). Some plants die in bushfires, but the extreme heat produced activates the seeds stored
within the soil. Others regenerate from under the outer layer of charred bark or their root systems.
An ecological assessment of the study area revealed that there were several endangered species
located in close proximity to the heritage buildings that must be considered in bushfire managementof the area.
Zones of vegetation around the buildings (asset protection zones: APZs) are generally managed
through clearing of undergrowth and thinning or removal of trees4). The steepness of the topography,
orientation and the vegetation type and density determine the width of the APZs and the extent ofclearing required. An existing car park and sports field provide protection to the eastern portion of
the heritage site, but on the western edge, the bushland extends right up to the buildings making
them particularly exposed.

Fig. 2 Leaves, twigs and bark shed constantly throughout the year createhigh fuel loads in the bush surrounding the heritage sites

Fig. 3 A line of fire hydrants in the bush provide a defensive ring aroundheritage buildings on the northern shores of Sydney Harbour

5.3 Australian Building Codes, Standards for Construction in Bushfire Prone Areas andAlternate approaches
Australian building codes (BCA) and standards for construction in bushfire prone areas require
the use of fire resistant construction. However, their application to the heritage buildings on thesite would have a substantial impact on their integrity and heritage values. BCA compliance would
generally require fire upgrades to the buildings including replacement of roof structures and timberwindow and door joinery. The heritage impact of these measures is considered unacceptable andan alternate, more holistic approach to bushfire mitigation has been proposed. The use of a fire
drenching system for the roofs and walls is being considered. Other mitigation measures include
the installation of leaf guards to gutters to prevent the collection of leaves and twigs (a fuel sourcein case of fire); the enclosure of subfloor areas and protection of windows and vents with fine mesh108

3.7 Advocating DRM Planning for Cultural Heritage in Australia; and Case Study:
Bushfire Mitigation for Natural and Cultural Heritage in Northern Sydney, in Australia, 2014

fire screens (to prevent fire embers from entering the buildings); the addition of seals to windows
and doors; and the upgrading of doors using specially designed and tested fire kits. A line of fire
hydrants and hose reels located between the buildings and the bush provide a further line of defene(Fig. 3). It is proposed that this line be strengthened with the addition of on-site water storage andthat staff at the site be trained in their use. This is particularly important as the only access road tothe site extends along the ridge through bushland and could be cut off preventing access by theprofessional fire services.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

References
1) Forbes C: Disaster Risk Management Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites in Australia: Case
Study ? The Rocks, Sydney Australia, published in Proceedings of UNESCO Chair Programmeon Cultural Heritage and Risk Management, International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural heritage, Ritsumeikan University, 9th Year, 2014.
2) CSIRO: State of the Climate Report 2014, http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/
Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate/2014-SoC-Report, accessed 22 November 2015.
3) NSW Office of Environment and Heritage: How Fire Affects NSW Plants and Animals, Environment
NSW Website, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/fire/fireaffect.htm, accessed 22 November
2015.
4) NSW Rural Fire Service: Asset Protection Zones, http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/plan-and-prepare/building-in-a-bush-fire-area/bush-fire-protection-measures/asset-protection-zones, accessed 22
November 2015.

109

3.8 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic Cairo(WHS), in Egypt, 2014
Abdelhamid SALAH
Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation (EHRF)

1. Introduction
Realizing the current situation that most of Egyptian urban heritage is facing nowadays and specially
Historic Cairo which listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in 1979 and its boundaries approvedin 2013 (Fig. 1, 2). Consequently, it is exposed to all the challenges that affect the city such as realestate and building speculation (Fig. 3a, b), pollution and deterioration.
These challenges have been exacerbated during the four years following the 25th of January 2011
revolution. The lack of security and the chaos that the country experienced let the ground free for realestate speculators who raided historical areas, irreversibly destroying the traditional urban fabric.
Those facts leave no doubt to us that Historic Cairo needs a developed Disaster Risk Management
plan as a tool for efficient protection of cultural heritage and preventing risks as well as raising theawareness not just among the community but also between the professionals and experts to set up
a list of priorities to recognize the real needs of the city.
That is why I applied to ITC on Disaster Risk Management of Culture Heritage to get the knowledge
and sufficient information on that topic.
But to transfer that objective to a study can be implemented, so now I have research where I cangain this knowledge.

Fig. 1 Al-Darb Al-Ahmar St., one of the main streets in Historic Cairo

Fig. 2 Bab El-Wazer Sq,.

(b)

(a)

110

Fig. 3 Bab El-Wazer Sq,.
a, b show the speed growing of the unplanned real states in
Historic Cairo after January 2011.

3.8 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic Cairo (WHS), in Egypt, 2014

2. Attending ITC on Disaster Risk Management of Culture Heritage
During the course and through the knowledge we gain as well as a lot of discussion with the trainers
and the recourse persons who were there all the course time, I could draw with them the first plan of
DRM for Historic Cairo which was the aim of attending the course (Fig.4).

3. The vision of the study
To conserve the identity of the city and to find the potential factors to make it resilience▽The objective of the study:• Undertake an integrated risk assessment by analyzing the vulnerability of cultural heritage todisasters risks.
• Build an integrated system for disaster risk management of cultural heritage, incorporating asustainable plan for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures;• Formulate risk management plans for cultural heritage that correspond to the urban and regional
disaster management plans and policies• Matching the needs of the DRM plan with the surrounding communities• Raise the awareness of the need for DRM of Cultural Heritage among the stakeholders• Conserving the identity of the city
• Setting a list of priorities for the intervention• Assessing the values of the city
• Listing the roles of the involved stakeholders

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 4 ITC on DRM 2014, Japan

4. The structure of the work plan:
Back home after the ITC on DRM, and I realized that to formulate a DRM plan it needs a hugeteam work starting from which data we have to collect, how we can collect the data, analyzing thecollecting data, assessing the current context and who should be assigned within the team work to
the start the following.
Assessing the various aspects of disaster risk management of cultural heritage within the context
of historic Cairo and analyzing the collected data and documenting the heritage through a survey
compiling essential facts such as: existing land and buildings use, type of ownership, date ofconstruction, architectural elements, heights, state of conservation, etc… (Fig.5) putting in mind
that until recently, only monuments with historic importance have been listed, and thus protected;
the minor architecture forming the back bone of the urban fabric for which Cairo was listed by
UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, has been totally ignored and left to decay. Also identifying
the main hazards facing the city that can cause major loss on city`s values side by side withassessing the vulnerabilities of the city to come up with clear charts and scenarios identifying the111relations between them and expected impacts on the city`s
attributes. This study will provide all the information neededto draft a DRM plan along with possible interventions on thezones and buildings at risk. Also the DRM plan will be an
essential step to reach a conservation plan. It will follow ascientific methodology in order to reach proper solutions
when it comes to the urban fabric.
5. Conclusions• The study will formulate sets of criteria corresponding
to the requirements of its varied cultural heritage andspecific urban and regional policies.
• Identifying the involved parties and assessing theircapacities in terms of financial and technical recourses.
(Fig.6, 7)• Produce integrated mitigation strategy on national level.
The strategy is going to be divided from short to longterm by planning a sequence of preventive measures
Fig. 5 Map of historic Cairo
including preparedness, adequate response andrecovery measures.
• Set up a role model for future generations and a tool to be replicated in other heritage sites in
Egypt and the region. The personnel trained will help in further capacity building.

Fig. 6 The proposed Recovery plan112

3.8 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for Historic Cairo (WHS), in Egypt, 2014

References
1) ICOMOS Review Sheet on the Nomination of the Historical Center of Cairo on the World Heritage
List, April 10, 1979.
2) Jigyasu, R.: Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas – A Training Guide,
Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto,
Japan, 2013.
3) UNESCO, Urban Regeneration Project for Historic Cairo, FIRST REPORT OF ACTIVITIES, July
2010-June 2012.

Activity after the International Training Course by Former Participants

Fig. 7 The proposed shared responsibility between EHRF and MoA

113

Appendix

List of Resource
Persons(As of 2015 September)
Kozo WATANABE
Vice Chancellor,
Ritsumeikan University

Peter HEAD
Foundre & Chief Executive,
CBE FREng HonFSE FRSA

Kenzo TOKI
Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)

Keiji YANO
Professor,
Department of Humanities,
Geography Major,
College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University

Rohit JIGYASUUNESCO Chair Holder,
President of ICCOMOS-ICORP,
Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)

Vanicka ARORA
Conservation Architect and Board Member,
ICOMOS India

Masafumi YAMASAKI
Professor,
Department of Architecture and Urban
Design, College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Masamitsu FUJIMOTO
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Noriyoshi TSURUOKAManager, Cultural Asset Division,
Board of Education, Kyoto Prefecture

Eric LUIJENDIJK
Urban Planner and Heritage Expert,
Board member of ICOMOS Netherlands

Ryoichi FUKAGAWA
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Hatthaya SIRIPHATTHANAKUN
Specialist in Cultural Heritage Conversation,
Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organisation Regional
Centre for Archaeology andFine Arts (SEAMEO-SPAFA)

Shinta YOSHITOMI
Professor,
Department of Architecture and Urban
Design, College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
Takeyuki OKUBO
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Collegeof Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan
University
Director,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)

116

Kenji SAWAI
Professor Emeritus,
Setsunan University

Hikokazu OMORI
Director,
Omori Architectural Office
Yoshinori MACHIDA
Citizens Safety Director,
Citizens Safety Section,
Safety and Ambulance Division,
Kyoto City Fire Department
Rajib SHAW
Professor,
Graduate School of Global Environmental
Studies,
Kyoto University

Kai Ube Prasad WEISE
Architect,
Planners' Alliance for the Himalayan & Allied
Regions (PAHAR Nepal)
Yasumichi MURAKAMI
Senior Administrator,
Hyogo Pref. Board of Education
Mayumi KUDO
Senior priest,
Kaminoyama Hachiman-gu Shrine
Yoshihiro HIRAOKA
Professor,
Architecture Design Laboratory, Departmentof Design Information, Miyagi University

Takuya SUZUKI
Minamisanriku-Cho Nature Center TomonoKai
Kyuichiro SATO
Kaminoyama Hachiman-gu Shrine
Kie SUGAWARA
Minamisanriku-Cho Tourism Association
Isao KISO
Special Advisor to the Cabinet,
Former Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary of Japan, Permanent
Delegate to UNESCO
Qing WEI
Executive Director,
Cultural Heritage Conservation Center of
Beijing Guowenyan Co., LTD
Akatsuki TAKAHASHI
Programme Specialist for Culture
UNESCO Office for the Pacific States (Apia,
Samoa)

Kumiko SHIMOTSUMA
Senior Cultural Properties Specialist,
Cultural Properties Department,
Agency for Cultural Affairs
German Tiangco VELASQUEZ
Chief of Section, Advocacy and Outreach
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR)
Joseph Alan KING
Director of the Sites Unit,
ICCROM
Giovanni BOCCARDI
Chief,
Emergency preparedness
and response Unit (CLT/EPR),
Culture Sector, UNESCO

Appendix

Wesley Webb CHEEK
Urban Studies Pre-Doctoral Fellow,
City, Culture and Community,
Tulane University

Abdelhamid Salah Abdelhamid SAYED
Chairman, Conservator in the Ministry of
Antiquities,
Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation(EHRF);
Training & Capacity Building Unit Manager,
Egyptian Earth Construction Association(EECA)

Naoko USHITANI ITAYA
Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Yuko ISHIDA
Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University
Dowon KIM
Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University
Mingji CUI
Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University

Aparna TANDON
Project Specialist, ICCROM

117

List of Participants
Marcela HURTADO SALDIAS, Chile
Assistant professor,
Departamento de Arquitectura,
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria
Benjamin Kofi AFAGBEGEE, Ghana
Assistant Conservator of Monuments,
Ghana Museums and Monuments
Board
Stephan DONA, Haiti
Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor,
Plan Consult
Mohamad Faruk MUSTHAFA, India
Chief Executive Officer,
RAPID RESPONSE
Mohammad RAVANKHAH, IranTeaching/research assistant in Departmentof Environmental Planning,
Ph.D. Candidate in International Graduate
School: Heritage Studies,
Brandenburg University of Technology
Cottbus
Aurelio DUGONI, Italy
Regional Director of ANPAS Sicily
Committee,
National Association for Public Assistance(ANPAS)
Hisila MANANDHAR, Nepal
Urban planner,
Kathmandu Valley Development Authority
Sonam LAMA, Nepal
Assistant professor,
Nepal Enginnering College

118

Ilse Anne Elisabeth DE VENT, Netherlands
Senior inspector, Geo-Engineering,the Dutch State Supervision of Mines
Bashar Ibrahim HUSSEINI, Palestine
Senior Project Architect & Fast Track
Coordinator,
Welfare Association-Old City of Jerusalem
Revitalization Program “OCJRP”
Gerald Vallo PARAGAS, Philippines
Urban and Environmental Planner(Licensed),
City Government of Tacloban
Marko ALEKSIĆ, Serbia
Associate,
Central Institute for Conservation in
Belgrade
Pamela Jane MAC QUILKAN, South Africa
Programme Officer,
The African World Heritage Fund (AWHF)
Witiya PITTUNGNAPOO, Thailand
Lecturer,
Faculty of Architecture,
Naresuan University
Ngoc Phu PHAM, Vietnam
Vice Director,
Hoi An center for Cultural Heritage
Management and Conservation

Photos of ITC 2015

Opening address given by the Vice Chancellor, Ritsumeikan
University

The First Presentations by the training participants

Site investigation of wooden heritage buildings at KiyomizuDera Temple

Appendix

Site Visit 1 at Kiyomizu-Dera Temple

Field work for Risk Assessment at Sannei-Zaka Important
Preservation District and there surroundings

Site Visit 2 at Sannei-Zaka Important Preservation District

119

Workshop 3 Risk Assessment Exercise: Presentation and Discussion on DIG

120

Observing Disaster Prevention Facilities for Cultural Assets
at Ninna-ji Temple

Site Visit 5 at Minami-Sanriku-Cho which affected by theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Lecture 23 at Kaminoyama-Hachiman-Gu Shrine in MinamiSanriku-Cho

Workshop 6 at Minami-Sanriku-Cho disaster affected areaby the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Presentation of completion certificates to the participants

The group photo of ITC2015 with the Experts of International
Organizations